LINK for same - http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/mpls/configuration/guide/mp_vpn_pece_lnk_prot.html#wp1054704
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 11:06 AM, jack daniels <jckdaniel...@gmail.com>wrote: > I found on internet > > MPLS VPN LOCAL LABEL - with BGP > > basically this is via advertising same label on primary PE for prefix for > both primary and secondary paths.So that if primary path fails then same > label can be used to Primary PE ( primary PE CE link down) ,,, then Primary > PE route traffic to secondary CE . > > > Regards > > > > On 3/28/10, David Prall <d...@dcptech.com> wrote: >> >> PfR takes care of the rerouting on a site basis. The site is monitoring >> reachability to a particular prefix. The key issue with a single cloud, is >> that you don't control the end to end path. If it is two clouds then you >> can >> monitor end to end via each cloud, and choose which one is better to use >> for >> a particular prefix or traffic type. >> >> -- >> http://dcp.dcptech.com >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: jack daniels [mailto:jckdaniel...@gmail.com] >> > Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 10:20 PM >> > To: David Prall >> > Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >> > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] PFR Question >> > >> > IN SCENARIO BOTH LINKS FROM SAME SERVICE PROVIDER -But how will this >> > avoid drops when PE1and CE1 link goes down as MPBGP bring secondary >> > path as best in BGP table ( MPLS domain )and then to routing table will >> > take atleast 3 min. >> > Till secondry path not in routing table there will be pcket drops.So >> > PE3 will converge so fast. >> > >> > >> > >> > On 3/26/10, David Prall <d...@dcptech.com> wrote: >> > >> > This is where PfR is involved to route around the primary carrier >> > to the >> > secondary. >> > >> > -- >> > http://dcp.dcptech.com >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: jack daniels [mailto:jckdaniel...@gmail.com] >> > > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 8:50 PM >> > > To: David Prall >> > > Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >> > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] PFR Question >> > > >> > > Hi David, >> > > >> > > In a multipath instance PE1 will install the Equal Cost route >> > with rd >> > > 1:1 >> > > first, using 1:2 as a secondary path only. Opposite on PE2.??? >> > > whne both paths have equal cost the why route with rd1:1 will >> > be >> > > primary always >> > > and rd 1:2 will be secondary on PE1. >> > > >> > > EVEN IF WE advertise X.X.X.X from PE1 and PE2 still PE3 will >> > have two >> > > routes in BGP table . But one in routing table. >> > > But how will this avoid drops when PE1and CE1 link goes down as >> > BGP >> > > bring secondary path to Primary and then to routing table will >> > take >> > > atleast 3 min. >> > > >> > > Regards >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:29 AM, David Prall <d...@dcptech.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > 1) >> > > On PE1 >> > > vrf description customer >> > > rd 1:1 >> > > route-target both 1:1 >> > > route-target import 1:2 >> > > On PE2 >> > > vrf description customer >> > > rd 1:2 >> > > route-target both 1:2 >> > > route-target import 1:1 >> > > >> > > In a multipath instance PE1 will install the Equal Cost >> > route >> > > with rd 1:1 >> > > first, using 1:2 as a secondary path only. Opposite on >> > PE2. >> > > >> > > 2) >> > > Could use different VRF's. Just like dual carriers. A key >> > concern >> > > is a dual >> > > failure, site 1 on network 1 and site 2 on network 2. The >> > > customer will need >> > > to provide a path between the two networks via one of >> > their >> > > sites. >> > > >> > > >> > > David >> > > >> > > -- >> > > http://dcp.dcptech.com <http://dcp.dcptech.com/> >> > > >> > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > From: jack daniels [mailto:jckdaniel...@gmail.com] >> > > >> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 2:41 PM >> > > > To: David Prall >> > > > Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >> > > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] PFR Question >> > > > >> > > >> > > > Hi David , >> > > > >> > > > thanks man I got the basic idea :) >> > > > >> > > > 1) but please explain in more detail this >> > > > >> > > > Single VRF, 2 distinct RD's. The VRF imports both, >> > exports one. >> > > The >> > > > RD's are >> > > > different so that multipath can be used within the core >> > > typically. But >> > > > in >> > > > this case they wouldn't use multipath and the local RD >> > would be >> > > used as >> > > > the >> > > > determining factor on import of which route is >> > installed >> > > first.?????? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > 2) Also if I use diffrent VRF for CE4---CE2 path that >> > will also >> > > work - >> > > > ?? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:57 PM, David Prall >> > <d...@dcptech.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > If the link goes away, then the update should be >> > pretty >> > > quick. >> > > > >> > > > Single VRF, 2 distinct RD's. The VRF imports >> > both, >> > > exports one. >> > > > The RD's are >> > > > different so that multipath can be used within >> > the core >> > > > typically. But in >> > > > this case they wouldn't use multipath and the >> > local RD >> > > would be >> > > > used as the >> > > > determining factor on import of which route is >> > installed >> > > first. >> > > > >> > > > The local CE (CE3) is probing for the subnet at >> > CE1. When >> > > it is >> > > > no longer >> > > > reachable by CE3 it will move the route to CE4. >> > As long >> > > as CE4 is >> > > > using CE2 >> > > > as the path via the cloud then no issue. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > David >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > >> > > > http://dcp.dcptech.com <http://dcp.dcptech.com/> >> > > <http://dcp.dcptech.com/> >> > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > From: jack daniels >> > [mailto:jckdaniel...@gmail.com] >> > > > >> > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 2:19 PM >> > > > > To: David Prall >> > > > > Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >> > > > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] PFR Question >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > If a single carrier, then the CE4/CE2 path >> > needs to be >> > > via >> > > > > a second RD so that the paths within the >> > carrier are >> > > preferred >> > > > and the >> > > > > same >> > > > > will happen.???? >> > > > > DO YOU mean we need to have diifrent vrf on >> > secondry >> > > end to end >> > > > path. >> > > > > >> > > > > I didnt get this if single carrier as link PE1 >> > and CE1 >> > > link >> > > > fails >> > > > > ....CE3 send traffic for X.X.X.X to PE3.PE3 >> > still has >> > > next hop >> > > > in its >> > > > > vrf table as PE1.... >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Please help me as still confused if two >> > carriers , how >> > > will >> > > > this >> > > > > hhappen >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:29 PM, David Prall >> > > <d...@dcptech.com> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Is MPLS Domain a single carrier, or two >> > carriers. >> > > If two >> > > > carriers >> > > > > then the >> > > > > CE3/CE4 site will see that they can't >> > reach via >> > > CE3/CE1 >> > > > path and >> > > > > switch over >> > > > > to CE4/CE2 path. If a single carrier, >> > then the >> > > CE4/CE2 >> > > > path needs >> > > > > to be via >> > > > > a second RD so that the paths within the >> > carrier >> > > are >> > > > preferred >> > > > > and the same >> > > > > will happen. PfR is providing end-to-end >> > > reachability >> > > > information >> > > > > in this >> > > > > case, and based on that changing the >> > local >> > > routing table. >> > > > > >> > > > > David >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > >> > > > > http://dcp.dcptech.com >> > <http://dcp.dcptech.com/> >> > > <http://dcp.dcptech.com/> >> > > > <http://dcp.dcptech.com/> >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > >> > > > > > From: jack daniels >> > > [mailto:jckdaniel...@gmail.com] >> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 1:07 PM >> > > > > > To: David Prall >> > > > > > Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >> > > > > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] PFR Question >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > But if you have -- >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > |CE1--------PE1 >> > > > > > PE3--------CE3 >> > > > > > X.X.X.X---------| ---- >> > -------- >> > > -------- >> > > > MPLS >> > > > > DOMAIN----- >> > > > > > -------------- >> > > > > > | CE2--------PE2 >> > > > > > PE4--------CE4 >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Now my primary link is CE1-PE1 and >> > secondary is >> > > CE2-PE2 >> > > > > > If my CE1-PE1 goes down i route traffic >> > via >> > > CE2- >> > > > PE2<<<<<<I >> > > > > understand >> > > > > > this ok... >> > > > > > >> > > > > > when traffic from CE3 for X.X.X.X >> > reaches PE3 , >> > > next >> > > > hop is >> > > > > still PE1 ( >> > > > > > as MPBGP has not converged so fast in >> > MPLS >> > > domain of >> > > > SP) ...so >> > > > > how will >> > > > > > traffic be forwareded , as PFR claims 3 >> > sec. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:16 PM, David >> > Prall >> > > > <d...@dcptech.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > PfR is a unidirectional feature. >> > The >> > > router on >> > > > the other >> > > > > end >> > > > > > needs to be >> > > > > > configured with PfR as well in >> > order to >> > > have >> > > > > bidirectional >> > > > > > visibility. >> > > > > > Typically the master controller >> > will be >> > > local to >> > > > the >> > > > > site. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > >> > > > > > http://dcp.dcptech.com >> > > <http://dcp.dcptech.com/> <http://dcp.dcptech.com/> >> > > > <http://dcp.dcptech.com/> >> > > > > <http://dcp.dcptech.com/> >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > > > From: cisco-nsp- >> > boun...@puck.nether.net >> > > > [mailto:cisco- >> > > > > nsp- >> > > > > > > boun...@puck.nether.net] On >> > Behalf Of >> > > jack >> > > > daniels >> > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 >> > 12:35 PM >> > > > > > > To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] PFR >> > Question >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > dear guys, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > is my mail being delivered to >> > group as >> > > no one >> > > > replied. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 11:42 >> > PM, jack >> > > daniels >> > > > > > > <jckdaniel...@gmail.com>wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Hi Network champs, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I'm stuck in understanding of >> > PFR . >> > > Docs say >> > > > it >> > > > > converges in >> > > > > > 3 sec ( >> > > > > > > for >> > > > > > > > realtime traffic VOICE )... >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I understand you can send >> > traffic out >> > > > secondry link >> > > > > but what >> > > > > > about >> > > > > > > traffic >> > > > > > > > which has to come back from >> > remote >> > > end ( for >> > > > which SP >> > > > > has not >> > > > > > > converged). >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > But if you have -- >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > |CE1--------PE1 >> > > > > > > > PE3--------CE3 >> > > > > > > > X.X.X.X---------| >> > -- >> > > -------- >> > > > -------- >> > > > > --MPLS >> > > > > > > > DOMAIN------------------- >> > > > > > > > | CE2-- >> > ------ >> > > PE2 >> > > > > > > > PE4--------CE4 >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Now my primary link is CE1- >> > PE1 and >> > > secondary >> > > > is CE2- >> > > > > PE2 >> > > > > > > > If my CE1-PE1 goes down i >> > route >> > > traffic via >> > > > CE2- >> > > > > PE2<<<<<<I >> > > > > > understand >> > > > > > > this >> > > > > > > > ok... >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > BUT MY QUESTION IS - >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > PE3 and PE4 ( for this VRF) >> > still has >> > > NOW >> > > > converged >> > > > > the BGP >> > > > > > and still >> > > > > > > for >> > > > > > > > it next hop for X.X.X.X is >> > PE1. So >> > > how fwd >> > > > can happen >> > > > > in 3 >> > > > > > sec untill >> > > > > > > > Service providers all routers >> > dont >> > > converge >> > > > and >> > > > > understand >> > > > > > that CE1- >> > > > > > > PE1 link >> > > > > > > > is down. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Regards >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > > > > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco- >> > > > n...@puck.nether.net >> > > > > > > >> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco- >> > > > nsp >> > > > > > > archive at >> > > > http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/