The MPLS-OPS Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS-OPS Archive>month:2003-Jan> msg00071



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]  
  [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index]

Re: mpls te question

  • From: Eric Osborne <eosborne@cisco.com>
  • Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 08:11:18 -0500
  • Cc: mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
  • Resent-Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:37:32 -0500
  • To: Srikar Mrk <srikar_mrk@yahoo.com>
  • User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
  • X-GPG-Fingerprint: 6412 0836 E440 B3EA 980C 4951 611E 1819 2E71 8562

On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 11:18:30PM -0800, Srikar Mrk wrote:
> 
> hello...
> 
> while trying to configure some basic mpls te topology i have following confusion...
> 
> In a network diagram,
> 
>  A   ------------ B ------------ C
> 
> if I have a dynamic MPLS TE tunnel from A to C and I am running OSPF and if I am using autoroute announce  (using default tunnel metric relative 0) , networks on C are being installed with only tunnel as next hop while I am expecting  the routes to be ECMP between tunnel and OSPF next hops because the costs would be the same..
> 
> am i assuming something wrong...?
>

Yes; we (as I assume this is a cisco config, from your terminology)
never load-share between IGP and TE for the route to the tail.  If we
did this, you could never control 100% of the A->C traffic with TE, as
some of it would always go via IGP.



eric
 
> thanks for your time.... 
> 
> sincerely,
> 
> srikar
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml