Hi Eric, Yes you are right about the physical interface tied to a SVI going down will trigger TE recalc but if a FRR protection is configured for such interface then the internal chain that needs to be formed beforehand which gives the 50 ms swithcover time has to be different when a FRR protection is configured for a physical interface. Keeping the purpose apart as you said we need to find out if a TE tunnel with SVI MPLS core as egress is supported or not or it is something that is missed while the feature is developed or is it something that they are aware of and planned to bring in as phase2 of this feature. So, in a nutshell the issue is as below (correct or add to this list) TE tunnel with SVI core with EVC BD on a 1   Gig interface - Working TE tunnel with SVI core with EVC BD on a 10 Gig interface - Not working TE tunnel with SVI core with switchport on a 1 Gig interface - Working TE tunnel with SVI core with switchport on a 10 Gig interface - Working The 1Gig ports are managed by NILE0 and 10G ports are managed by NILE1 forwarding asic. Thanks, Madhu ... View more

Hi Eric, I am giving a bit mroe thinking on this one. I need to check if we really support SVI core facing MPLS interface as TE tunnel egress interface. Because normally we configure a TE tunnel to protect a physical link failure but if we use a virtual interface like SVI then how are we going to protect it! I will check on this and get back to you. The best way to move forward is to capture all the information clearly and open up a new case and make sure you point the other case that is ongoing as well. If TAC finds these 2 related probably one can be duplicated to other else we can deal with these 2 issues separately. Thanks, Madhu ... View more

Hi Thiago, I dont have a 7K to play with handy. Let me see if I can grab one and try this out. 1. Do you see it everytime when you do a swithcover or just a one time occurence? 2. And between the 2 timestamps which one is the correct one? 3. Is this the only line that shows this or many more lines? 4. What is the version you are running? Thanks, Madhu ... View more

Hi Eric, Great that it fixed your issue. In fact I came across the case you mentioned with TAC as I do work for TAC here:-) I believe the SVI interface as core facing MPLS was introduced in 15.3(01)S version and I have come across some issues with this feature with various combinations. If this is not your production may be you can help us to share your setup where someone from engineering can take a look at. There are a lot of issues that can't be reproduced inhouse in our lab for various unknown reasons and this could be one of them. TAC is always at customer's service to fix their issues so feel free to talk to them on other options we have. Thanks, Madhu ... View more

and send me "show mpls traffic-eng tunnel tunnel 1" from the 24 switch. ... View more

Hi Evantol, Okay. Can you provide me the following? 1. "show ip route 10.10.8.3" from switch 21 and 24 before and after the command addition. 2. "show ip cef 10.10.8.3 detail/internal " from switch 21 and 24 before and after the command addition. 3. Are the interfaces from 21 switch is MPLS enabled until 24 or it is like plain IP and then converted to MPLS on 24 switch? 4. What does the "show ip cef exact-route 10.10.8.3 shows before and after that command from 24 switch? 5. sho mpls forwarding-table 10.10.8.3 from switch 24 Looks like the switch 24 is not able to either impose a tag or swap the tag and send out to next hop. Thanks, Madhu ... View more

Hi Thiago, I haven't seen anything before like this. Did you capture the above logs while it is printing on the console or did you run the "show logging" command and checked this? Thanks, Madhu ... View more

Hi Evantol, If I understand correctly your TE tunnel is from ME switch 24 to the router 3 and you are trying to ping from a switch say 21 or 22 behind ME switch 24 and it is not working. 1. Can you try to add "mpls ip" under the tunnel interface and try a ping? 2. What does the path TE tunnel takes before and after adding the autoroute statement? 3. Try a "traceroute mpls traffic-eng tunnel " and check if the path is same? Thanks, Madhu ... View more

Hi Evantol, Can you draw a simple topology and mentioned from where to where you are doing a ping test? You have mentioned that initially you had a tunnel setup and it accepts the traffic fine. Can you clarify how this tunnel accepts a traffic as you have not yet added the autoroute state? Creating a tunnel is just creating an ACL and without applying it, it is not going to be used. Autoroute announce is one way of preferring the tunnel in spite of other IGP paths. Not sure why it will drop the traffic. Please draw a simple topology, with the config before and after the ping failures. Thanks, Madhu ... View more