> -----Original Message----- > From: Pshem Kowalczyk [mailto:pshe...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 3:36 PM > To: Eric Van Tol > Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] MPLS-TE on ME3600 > > Hi, > > We use ME3600x with MPLS TE. I can't comment on the first point (we > don't have multiple areas), but on the second one - path protection is > protection end-to-end, whilst FRR uses a local repair mechanism, so > these two are quite different in the way they work. FRR on that device > works fine and provides protection for both originated and transit > LSPs. On the third point - yes, that's a limitation. I'm not sure if > it's a hardware or a software one. > > kind regards > Pshem
Thanks for the insight. I've confirmed in the lab that explicit paths allow LSP setup across areas. And just to confirm, if our switches have no routed ports on the core-facing side, where MPLS and EFPs are configured, enabling FRR will have no effect, right? -evt _______________________________________________ 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/
