Re: MPLS TE Tunnel : Tunnel B/W doubt

Kid

Everything you said is exactly what i understand this topic :)
We are on same page .

I will simulate the usage of metric command and try to post results ,

Till then .. thnx

Gaurav Madan

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 7:39 PM, CCIE KID <eliteccie_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Gaurav
>
> TE Auto Route Announce will just make ur OSPF learned LSA's from the
> Tunnel Tail End to utitlize the Tunnel path to reach all the networks
> behind the Tunnel Tail End Router. It has nothing to do with priority
> levels for each tunnel
> U can assign priorities to each tunnel and then tat take over the
> appropriate B.W. available in the interface if it has highest priority
>
> In ur case both ur tunnels has both set up and hold priority has 7 and 7
> 7 and 7 is the least priority tat u can assign to a tunnel and both the
> tunnels has the same priority and both r pointing to the same tunnel tail
> end and also u r running Auto Route Announce on both the tunnels
>
> But the only difference between the two tunnels is the Bandwidth and to
> form the two tunnels it requires 60 and 70 kbps end to end to form the
> tunnel. So atleast the B.W of the end to end path should be atleast 130kpbs
>
> So now OSPF will carry the TE information like the requested B.W and also
> other TE colors associated with TE in its Opaque LSA Type 9 ,10 and 11.
> depends upon it is a Single Area OSPF or Multi Area and also it is within
> the Single AS. If the Head end sees that it has enough B.W. then the Path
> message from Head end to Tail End and Reserve message from the Tail End to
> head End is succesfull , the tunnel will be up.
>
> if there is any change in the available BW in that particular end to end
> path, it will be conveyed by OSPF and it triggers the Path message and
> Reserve message
>
> In ur setup
>
> U r obviously u r going to see two paths to reach the tail-end router via
> these two tunnels and there will be Unequal cost LOAD balancing . If u want
> to prioritize one tunnel over another one , just change the metric of the
> tunnel rather than the BW
> Because B.W inside the tunnel doesnt reflect ur BEST METRIC to reach a
> particular TE Tail End
>
> So ultimately u have many paths to the Same tail end router ie via
> different tunnels.So ultimately it all depends upon how much BW is required
> to form the tunnel . Int his case , there will 70:60 ratio of traffic going
> from one tunnel to another tunnel.
>
> If u dont want to see Unequal Cost Load Balancing, u have to do Policy
> Routing rather than using AutoRoute Announce.
>
> But I am not sure about this command
>
> tunnel mpls traffic-eng autoroute metric
>
> If u give this command whether one tunnel will be preferred over another
> tunnel if ur Tail End Router address are same.
>
> Post me about this command dude
>
> Hope this helps
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 1:24 AM, Naveen <navin.ms_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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_at_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
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> With Warmest Regards,
>
> CCIE KID
> CCIE#29992 (Security)

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Sun Jan 29 2012 - 20:33:39 ART