The MPLS-OPS Archive

Cell Relay Retreat>MPLS-OPS Archive>month:2004-May> msg00067



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

Re: IGP Routes calculation over TE Tunnel

  • From: "M. ELK" <elkou141061@hotmail.com>
  • Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 15:30:06 +0000
  • Cc: elkou141061@hotmail.com
  • Resent-Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 12:11:22 -0400
  • To: eosborne@cisco.com, mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
  • X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 May 2004 15:30:07.0326 (UTC) FILETIME=[FFB5A7E0:01C43CEC]
  • X-Originating-Email: [elkou141061@hotmail.com]
  • X-Originating-IP: [57.250.229.136]
  • X-Sender: elkou141061@hotmail.com

Hi Eric

Thanks for the clarification ,Appreciate if U could answer the 2nd question 
in my initial msg :

Quote
>>Now :
>>Config T2 from R4 to R1 with absolute metric 1 .
>>R1 and R4 are config to advertise T1,T2  as link in the IGP .
>>
>>at R1 :  could we expect that it is now case 2 ???

Unquote

To use CSCO terminology this is the  case of FA configured at R1 and R4 and 
the link cost is set to
1 in both end . what will be the RIB at R1 ,is it same as Case 2 ?? . ie:

>>Case 2 :
>>
>>Prefix      Cost    Via
>>P2           10       a
>>P3           11      T1
>>p4           1        T1

My guess is yes , as R1 will insert R4 as one of his own neighbor (despite 
no real "adjacency" with R4,
by "no real" i mean no IGP Hello  making the adjacency ) when filling the 
TENT list .

Brgds

>From: "Eric Osborne" <eosborne@cisco.com>
>To: "M. ELK" <elkou141061@hotmail.com>, mpls-ops@mplsrc.com
>Subject: Re: [MPLS-OPS]: IGP Routes calculation over TE Tunnel Date: Tue, 
>18 May 2004 08:12:37 -0400
>
>On Tue, 18 May 2004 10:41:03 +0000, M. ELK <elkou141061@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Hi
>>
>>Despite it was explained to me previously still facing some difficulty.
>>Consider the following :
>>
>>
>>R1-a-----R2-----R3-----R4
>>
>>P1 prefix associated with R1 ,P2 with R2 ...etc .
>>
>>All link with 10 as cost . "a" is the interface of R1
>>
>>currently at R1 :
>>
>>Prefix      Cost    Via
>>P2           10       a
>>P3           20       a
>>p4           30       a
>>
>>Set T1 from R1 to R4 with absolute metric 1 :
>>
>>Case 1 :
>>
>>Prefix         Cost         Via
>>P2              10          a
>>P3              20          a
>>p4              1           T1
>>
>>Case 2 :
>>
>>Prefix      Cost    Via
>>P2           10       a
>>P3           11      T1
>>p4           1        T1
>>
>>Is it case 1 or case 2 (mainly for P3) ??
>
>The details are probably going to be implementation-specific, but in the  
>case of the implementation I know the most about, it will be case 1.   
>Costs are changed *after* the IGP SPF is computed, which means that the  
>cost to p4 has no impact whatsoever on p2 and p3.  This is, of course,  
>assuming you are talking about our autoroute feature.  We have this other  
>thing, forwarding-adjacency, that doesn't behave like this at all, and  
>other vendors are free to do whatever they like with metrics.
>
>>My guess it will be case 1 to follow draft-ietf-rtgwg-igp-shortcut-00.txt
>
>I just looked at this draft, and it basically explains how our autoroute  
>works.  This leads me to believe that at least one other implementation  
>works basically the same way.
>
>As an aside, the special case in section 5 of the draft looks a *lot* like
>http://www/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1612/products_feature_guide09186a0080080850.html#1019729.
>
>>, but what are the reason
>>to prefer this approach , is it to avoid any possible loop ??? If yes :  
>>could U pls provide an
>>example of topology where loop could exist .
>>
>
>I've not seen too many people play with autoroute metrics; they are  
>confusing to most people, and tend to be used to solve the last 5% or 10%  
>of problems after you've applied lots of other tricks.  But that's just  
>me, others may have different exposure.
>
>As far as loops, in the autoroute metric case there won't be any loops,  
>because of where the cost adjustment is done.
>
>
>
>
>eric
>
>>.
>>
>>Now :
>>Config T2 from R4 to R1 with absolute metric 1 .
>>R1 and R4 are config to advertise T1,T2  as link in the IGP .
>>
>>at R1 :  could we expect that it is now case 2 ??? .
>>
>>
>>Brgds
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
>>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>>
>>-------
>>The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
>>Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
>>Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

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