rk and the backup LSP path was never used. As
a resolution to the case JTAC has agreed to update the traceroute command
documentation.
Serge
- Original Message
From: Serge Vautour
To: Alex ; juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 3:25:38 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] OSPF LFA an
2010 1:44:13 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] OSPF LFA and LDP LSPs
Serge,
Do you have "track-igp-metric" configured under LDP? I am pretty sure it does
not since your OSPF and LDP metrics are different but I'd like to confirm.
Please try to configure "track-igp-metric" for L
ssage -
From: "Serge Vautour"
To: "Clarke Morledge" ;
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] OSPF LFA and LDP LSPs
Hello,
Thanks for your comments. I agree with your theory. It's my understanding
as well. What I don't get is why the
LSP when it shouldn't be...
Serge
- Original Message
From: Clarke Morledge
To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
Cc: Serge Vautour
Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 11:35:30 AM
Subject: RE: [j-nsp] OSPF LFA and LDP LSPs
Serge,
Part of what you wrote included this:
> Now I turn on OSPF LFA &q
Serge,
Part of what you wrote included this:
Now I turn on OSPF LFA "link-protection" on the links and re-run the same tests:
---
se36...@pe1-stjhlab-re0> show route 10.10.80.2 logical-system PE10 detail
inet.0: 34 destinations, 34 routes (34 active, 0 holddown, 0 hidden)
Hello,
We are testing MPLS in our lab using two MX960s with a few LS to add more
routers. I'm using OSPF as the IGP and LDP for transport labels. We're on 10.0
code so I've been testing OSPF LFA. It appears to be doing something strange
and I can't tell if it's per design or a bug.
Here's a PE
6 matches
Mail list logo
