True. You cannot map different classes on the same EoMPLS PW to different TE paths, as EoMPLS is a single point to point L2 link... You can still have multiple EoMPLS PW's, each using an alternate path using different TE tunnels, or use TE FRR...
I am not aware of any implementation that can do DS-TE with L2VPN... It is more for IP based services. Arie -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rubens Kuhl Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2010 17:24 To: Michael Robson Cc: Cisco-nsp Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 6500s SXI and EoMPLS >> For TE (and MPLS in general) check: >> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/con >> figuration/guide/pfc3mpls.html >> > > These documents mention no reference to TE for EoMPLS: is it safe to assume > therefore that the 650 doesn't support tE for EoMPLS? No, it's not. One thing that you might give it a try is using a specific loopback on both routers for the EoMPLS tunnel, announce these new loopbacks on the IGP, and then using TE for the traffic to those loopbacks. I was planning to test it to see if it works but ended up in a new job before that... > Am I also correct in saying that, since outgoing policies are not support on > 6500s for LAN-based cards, there is no real way to give shape or restrict > EoMPLS pseudowire bandwidths by EXP/TC field? Class-based tunnel-selection doesn't support AToM if I recall it well, but you probably can use a 1:1 pseudowire:tunnel ratio to have a more granular control. Rubens _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
