Re: MPLS TE Tunnel : Tunnel B/W doubt

Yes. What you have is already doing UELB (unequal cost load balancing in
the ratio 6:7) also across TE tunnels. Try sending some traffic end to end,
and check the TE counters.

If your intention is not to load balancing at all, then remove "autoroute
announce", and then route traffic to the tunnel you want with a local
policy.

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM, GAURAV MADAN <gauravmadan1177_at_gmail.com>wrote:

> Naveen ,
>
> Thnx for the reply ..
> Do you mean to suggest some kind of unequal load-balancing across various
> TE tunnels .
>
> Between the tunnels ; I can choose using following command :
>
> Router(config-if)#tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute metric
>
> I can set one tunnel as lower metric to be announced over the second
> tunnel . and hence play around with this
>
> Is that what u r suggesting ?
>
>
> Gaurav Madan
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Naveen <navin.ms_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What you are seeing is Load balancing across multiple TE tunnels for
>> prefixes reachable further down the tunnel. This is an expected behavior
>> with "autoroute announce". You can use "auto-bw" to dynamically control the
>> TE tunnel Bandwidth after tunnel setup.
>>
>> Once tunnels are established (using CSPF), IGP considers the Tunnels as
>> always 1-hop (and always prefers over any other IGP 1-hop path). You can
>> load balance upto 8,16, or 32 TE paths as supported by the platform.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Sonu Khandelwal <sonu.kwl_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> [image: Boxbe] <https://www.boxbe.com/overview> Sonu Khandelwal (
>>> sonu.kwl@gmail.com) is not on your Guest List<https://www.boxbe.com/approved-list>| Approve
>>> sender <https://www.boxbe.com/anno?tc=10557674166_204049186> | Approve
>>> domain <https://www.boxbe.com/anno?tc=10557674166_204049186&dom>
>>>
>>> on interface it means how much bandwidth can be reserved by RSVP.
>>> on tunnel it means, how much bandwidth is required by tunnel.
>>>
>>> Hope it helps.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sonu
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 11:37 PM, GAURAV MADAN <
>>> gauravmadan1177_at_gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>> > Then what does "rsvp bandwidth <> " on interface does ?
>>> > That is also a constraint on interface to establish the tunnel ..
>>> right ?
>>> >
>>> > How do you differentiate between the BW that we specify on interface
>>> level
>>> > and the one that we specify on interface tunnel ?
>>> >
>>> > Thnx
>>> > Gaurav Madan
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Paul Negron <negron.paul_at_gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > The bandwidth is a constraint. It only says " I need 60K of
>>> bandwidth in
>>> > > order to establish this tunnel". One tunnel requires 60K and the
>>> other
>>> > > requires 70K. If the bandwidth is available for both, they will both
>>> be
>>> > > established. That "bandwidth" constraint has nothing to do with the
>>> cost
>>> > of
>>> > > the tunnel for route selection.
>>> > > --
>>> > > Paul Negron
>>> > > CCIE# 14856 CCSI# 22752
>>> > > Senior Technical Instructor
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > > From: GAURAV MADAN <gauravmadan1177_at_gmail.com>
>>> > > > Reply-To: GAURAV MADAN <gauravmadan1177_at_gmail.com>
>>> > > > Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 20:44:46 +0530
>>> > > > To: Cisco certification <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
>>> > > > Subject: MPLS TE Tunnel : Tunnel B/W doubt
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Hi All
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I am running in some issue to understand how Tunnel Bandwidth
>>> works .
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Topology
>>> > > > ---------
>>> > > >
>>> > > > R1 R4
>>> > > > | |
>>> > > > | |
>>> > > > R2-----------------R3
>>> > > >
>>> > > > R1 is head end of tunnel . It has 2 tunnels Tunnel0 and Tunnel 1 as
>>> > > follows
>>> > > > :
>>> > > >
>>> > > > R1#sh run int tun 0
>>> > > > Building configuration...
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Current configuration : 284 bytes
>>> > > > !
>>> > > > interface Tunnel0
>>> > > > ip unnumbered Loopback0
>>> > > > tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng
>>> > > > tunnel destination 4.4.4.4
>>> > > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute announce
>>> > > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority 7 7
>>> > > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 70
>>> > > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 dynamic lockdown
>>> > > > end
>>> > > >
>>> > > > R1#sh run int tun 1
>>> > > > Building configuration...
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Current configuration : 284 bytes
>>> > > > !
>>> > > > interface Tunnel1
>>> > > > ip unnumbered Loopback0
>>> > > > tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng
>>> > > > tunnel destination 4.4.4.4
>>> > > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute announce
>>> > > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority 7 7
>>> > > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 60
>>> > > > tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 dynamic lockdown
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Now ; one tunnel has bandwidth of 70Kbps and other has of 60Kbps .
>>> > > > Following is my show ip route ospf output :
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 4.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
>>> > > > O 4.4.4.4 [110/4] via 4.4.4.4, 00:05:52, Tunnel1
>>> > > > [110/4] via 4.4.4.4, 00:05:52, Tunnel0
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I see both entries there ...
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Is there a reason for this ?
>>> > > > Please let me know .. I think that it should be routing via Tunnel
>>> 0
>>> > > only .
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Thanks
>>> > > > Gaurav Madan
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> > > > Subscription information may be found at:
>>> > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________________________________
>>> > Subscription information may be found at:
>>> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Sat Jan 28 2012 - 11:54:30 ART