Tks Oli, I believe it is a trend due to FastReroute recovery for VPN customers. Maybe it change soon with IP FastReroute. Maybe not :)
I will test it again with your suggestion. Tks again, Alaerte -----Original Message----- From: ext Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 5:43 AM To: Vidali Alaerte (NSN - BR/Rio de Janeiro); [email protected] Subject: RE: [c-nsp] MPLS L3 VPN over TE - Load Balancing per Customer [EMAIL PROTECTED] <> wrote on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:18 PM: > Hi, > > Considering the topology where MPLS VPN over TE is used: > (2 links between PE1--PE2) > > CustA------PE1========PE2----CustA > | | > CustB_______| |_____CustB > > > What are the possibilities of loading balance traffic in the way CustA > traffic goes through link 1 and CustB traffic goes through link 2? > (considering BGP next hop is the same for CustA and CustB) Why are you using TE in this setup? The TE tunnel will only use one of the two links. If you really want to achieve what you describe, you need two tunnels and use bgp next-hop manipulation to steer the traffic over the respective tunnel. But you could also use two tunnels and use CEF load-sharing for a single bgp next-hop. TE also allows to do unequal-cost loadsharing, but you are probably aware of this already. oli P.S: This is the third time L3VPN over TE has come up in the past few weeks. Is this a trend? ;-) _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
