Configuring RSVP LSP and binding VC to it :).

[agata.czekalska]

Hi Folks!!!

I hope You are all right.

I would like to configure a VC on Cisco Catalyst 6500 series switch and bind it to trunk. I know how to configure a VC, but I do not know how to first: configure a tunnel bewteen two endpoints and second: bind configured VC to trunk. When I say trunk I mean RSVP LSP. Any help from You guys?

In my implementation mpls traffic-eng tunnels command is issued on MPLS network interfaces on Catalsyst 6500 switch just to start RSVP signalling which I use for LSP protection as far other VCs are configured in the network but none on Cisco switch.

Best regards,

Agata

[Laurent Aubert]

HI Agata,

Do you mean binding a Pseudowire to a TE tunnel ?

Thanks

Laurent.

[agata.czekalska]

Hi,

Yes Laurent, that is what I mean.

I issued the command show mpls traffic-eng tunnels and there is an entry about the tunnel I want to configure between Cisco and the other device. I think that is because RSVP is signalling.

But when I issue the command show mpls l2transport vc detail displayed signalling protocol is LDP and I would like to bind it to RSVP-TE.

What I simply want to have is a TE tunnel with VC in it. VC status is up and I can pass traffic throuh it, but I did not configure a tunnel. I would also like to have primary and secondary path in it.

I'm also going to look for Cisco documentation.

Thanks everybody for help and Have a Great Day!

Best regards,

Agata Czekalska

Technical University of Lodz

[jcozzupoli]

Hi Agata,

Maybe this will help:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2sr/12_2sra/feature/guide/srtunsel.html

I'm sure this is what you want to achieve.

HTH.

Regards,

Joe.

[agata.czekalska]

Hi Joe,

I have already found this document, but with Your post You made me sure that this what I was looking for.

So let's clarify that TE Tunnels with primary and backaup paths within are available with Cisco Any Transport over MPLS: Tunnel Selection feature.

Let's also add that this feauture is supported by Cisco 7600 router with PFC3BXL and PFC3B cards.

So my conclusion is that I can not provide TE Path Protection what I exactly need with Cisco Catalyst Series Switch.

I would be grateful for further confirmation from You Guys as far as I do not want to confuse matters.

I know that there is a possibility to install PFC3BXL or PFC3B card in Catalyst 6500 switch.

Best regards,

Agata

[Laurent Aubert]

Hi Agata,

This feature is not currently supported on 6500 which runs 12.2SX train. This oine is different from 12.2SR which support 7600. It's different Business Unit within Cisco with their own road-maps.

You should contact your Cisco account team to see if this feature will be integrated in future 6500 releases.

HTH

Laurent.

[agata.czekalska]

Hi Laurent and Other Folks,

I found electronic version of MPLS Configuration on Cisco IOS Software book by Bancy Lobo and Umesh Lakshman. Here is the link: http://mpls-configuration-on-cisco-ios-software.org.ua/1587051990/main.html.

Please see the section Configuring MPLS TE in chapter 9 MPLS Traffic Engineering. Follow this link  http://mpls-configuration-on-cisco-ios-software.org.ua/1587051990/ch09lev1sec4.html.

I'm running the Cisco Catalyst 6500 series switch with current version of Cisco IOS 12.2(18)SXD6.

Let's resume what I would like to do in my half lab half production environment.

I would like to establish TE Tunnel between two switches. One endpoint of the Tunnel will be Cisco Catalyst 6500 switch and onother endpoint will MRV OptiSwitch machine. At the moment I'm only interested in ensuring redundant link what we can call Path Protection in terms of MPLS TE, which means that there are two paths within TE Tunnel. One is primary path and one is secondary or backup however we call it.

I need to add that the current network on which I'm testing MPLS implemetion consists of seven switches. In this network few VCs (Layer 2 MPLS VPNs point-to-point connections) exist already and every VC is bound to Trunk (MRV terminology) or to Tunnel as We wish as far Cisco Systems uses this term.

Because we previosly talked if there is a possibility to configure TE Tunnel on Catalyst 6500 switch I decided to try configuration given in the book mentioned earlier as far as I was not sure if such configuration is impossible despite our earlier talk.

First think is that given configuration is possible to apply in terms of available IOS commands. Dynamic route which is primary one in this case seems to be operational from show mpls traffic-eng tunnels command but the secondary path which is configured as a explicity route is not operational.

The other thing is that after issuing sh mpls traffic-eng tunnels brief two tunnels I have configured have unknown down if and down ports.

I'm also wondering why in this configuration there are two Tunnels because of my understanding the matter is that we have two paths in one tunnel. But maybe I'm confusing something.

Any further assistance, comments or ideas from You Guys?

Thank You in advance and have a Great Day!

Best regards,

Agata Czekalska

Technical University of Lodz