Ok, that is going to show how inexperienced I am in MPLS/RSVP/etc. but what is the SPT you are referring to and what JunOS config elements does it correspond to? Having trouble translating the terms into example config :-) I would probably just start with c (discard 100% of other traffic) then perhaps look into the QoS.
Speaking of QoS, might another way to solve this (assuming I could mark traffic eligible to discard) be to use use QoS on both sides of the high-cost link and just discard that marked traffic? Then I could just let the existing ISIS/LDP stuff do it's thing. On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> wrote: > On 3 August 2016 at 18:10, Dean B <jnprl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey, > > > Thanks for everyone's suggestions. RSVP-TE looks like it would be the > > cleanest solution. I'm still a little lost on how that would be > > implemented. Saku in what you are suggesting would the following be > > correct: > > > > ISIS with traffic engineering enabled on all the ring links > > RSVP enabled on all the ring links > > LSPs with normal priority configured on each node to every other node for > > BGP to use > > LSPs configured for l2vpn use on each node that requires them and set > them > > to a high reservation priority > > I essentially have three options: > > a) use SPT, where the expensive link isn't used, put L2VPN with > segment routing on the expensive link > b) use SPT, where the expensive link isn't used, put L2VPN with RSVP > on the expensive link > c) use SPT, where the expensive link is used, have all traffic in RSVP > tunnels, so that non L2VPN traffic will fall-off the SPT path, due to > lack of capacity > > If the low-cost SPT breaks down, and only high-cost link is possible, > what is your desired outcome? > > 1) blackhole 100% of traffic that would switch to the high-cost link > 2) use QoS so that all existing traffic on high-cost link works, but > also all other demand is moved there, and pushed through as much as > possible > > For 2) all of a-c can do it. > For 1) you need c > > > > > > > > So in case of a failure of one of the low-cost links the high reservation > > priority on the l2vpn LSPs will only allow them to form on the expensive > > path and the BGP LSPs will just be down? What will keep BGP from just > using > > the IGP best path at that point? > > > > > -- > ++ytti > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp