[c-nsp] TE FRR vs PATH OPTION PROTECTION

Hi experts, I'm trying to deploy MPLS TE tunnel protection method with as minimal switchover time as possible, which one between TE FRR and Path Option should I choose and why?If I deploy both of them,what are pros and cons if there are any? Thanks in advance Regards, Emmanuel

[c-nsp] SERVICES DOWN DUE FAILURE TO SWITCHING

Hi all, There was this failure in SP network I work for which I can't make sense of Seamless MPLS has been deployed Networkwide, There is a cluster of access layer routers,let me take one of them as 'A'.Router 'A' is in Ospf Area 5,It has three bgp RRs,these RRs are in the same cluster ID,and

Re: [c-nsp] RSVP-TE was (no subject)

Thanks Mark I will try to enable BFD for rsvp and monitor if the convergence time will improve. Regards, Emmanuel On Mon, Apr 13, 2020, 00:43 Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 12/Apr/20 21:58, Hari Sapkota wrote: > > Hi Emmanuel, > > > > The RSVP should be informed in the case of link failure since

Re: [c-nsp] RSVP-TE was (no subject)

ernate path that you > have provisioned within the MPLS domain. > > HTH > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 1:06 AM emmanuel manoni > wrote: > >> Thanks man.One more question >> 1.I want to improve switchover time in case of failure in my MPLS TE >> configured network,I

Re: [c-nsp] RSVP-TE was (no subject)

Thanks man.One more question 1.I want to improve switchover time in case of failure in my MPLS TE configured network,I know over L2 switch bfd does the trick,in my network only bfd for igp has been configured,do I need to configure bfd for rsvp as well?if yes,what will be its significance compared

[c-nsp] (no subject)

Hi, I'm a Network Engineer in a Carrier Network, recently I have been learning MPLS TE. I have some questions regarding MPLS TE deployment in IOS XR.Kindly help 1.Using forwarding-adjacency as a method of distributing traffic into the TE Tunnels, is it possible to do unequal cost