Please see attachements.
I'm trying to build three mpls-te tunnels (LSP): the first from ms to sa1, the second from ms to sa1 going through sa26, and the third from ms to sa1 going through sa6 (not built yet). I was able to get Tunnel1 up/up, but Tunnel2 is up/down. Is my configuration correct? Obviously not, since tunnel2 is Up/Down.
My main goal is to load balance the traffic between these three tunnels. Also how can to test or validate that traffic is being load balancing properly?
Thanks in advance.
MPLS TE call admission control works on attempts to setup tunnels.
My guess is that tunnel1 was already up when you have changed rsvp bandwidth on interfaces.
To see this do the following:
wait 20-30 seconds
try to unshut tunnel1
this time the tunnel should not be able to come up/up for lack of resources.
Hope to help
I've probably given a too broad answer.
I try to give more focused answers
>> My goal is to have 50% of all traffic go to tunnel1 and 50% to tunnel2.
As I wrote in my first post there is traffic limiting related to bandwidth in a tunnel.
You can use 1 kbps of BW or 50 Mbps with same result.
If you want to have both tunnels up/up BW_T1 + BW_T2 < 75000 kbps
ip rsvp bandwidth (default uses 75% of 100Mbps?)
yes as explained in command reference link, the first link in my first post.
>> If you enter the ip rsvp bandwidth command without any bandwidth values (for example, ip rsvp bandwidth followed by pressing the Enter key), a default bandwidth value (that is, 75% of the link bandwidth) is assumed for both the interface-kbps and single-flow-kbps arguments.
tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 50 dynamic
>> this means a dynamic path is used with priority 50, the lowest value wins. This is typically used as a backup path if a primary explicit path cannot be used for example for lack of resources or because a link or a node is down and it is in the list of the explicit path
about ip rsvp resource-provider none
as far as I understand it is not closely related to MPLS TE. I've never used if just to make an example.
about path choices of the two tunnels:
tunnel1 uses a dynamic path so it uses the outgoing interface on the best path to tunnel destination
tunnel2 would like to use an explicit path, if the explicit path is correctly describing the desired path it will be used (desired path would out anothe FE) but if the explicit path is not accepted a dynamic path will be used with the risk to try to use the same interface.
I will give a look at your topology
I understand you would like to have tunnel2 going via sa26 and tunnel1 on the direct path.
For some reason, the explicit path is not accepted and both tunnels try to used shortest path.
post sh mpls traffic-eng tunnel2 we should see some information about path calculation.
Hope to help