Re: MPLS TE Tunnel : Tunnel B/W doubt

Gaurav

Tats gr8 mate .. I will also check the purpose of it and let u know buddy..
Till then study hard

On Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 8:33 PM, GAURAV MADAN <gauravmadan1177_at_gmail.com>wrote:

> 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)
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
With Warmest Regards,
CCIE KID
CCIE#29992 (Security)
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net