Restrictions for Implementing Tunnels
-
It is important to allow the tunnel protocol to pass through a firewall and access control list (ACL) check.
-
Multiple point-to-point tunnels can saturate the physical link with routing information if the bandwidth is not configured correctly on a tunnel interface.
-
A tunnel looks like a single hop link, and routing protocols may prefer a tunnel over a multihop physical path. The tunnel, despite looking like a single hop link, may traverse a slower path than a multihop link. A tunnel is as robust and fast, or as unreliable and slow, as the links that it actually traverses. Routing protocols that make their decisions based only on hop counts will often prefer a tunnel over a set of physical links. A tunnel might appear to be a one-hop, point-to-point link and have the lowest-cost path, but the tunnel may actually cost more in terms of latency when compared to an alternative physical topology. For example, in the topology shown in the figure below, packets from Host 1 will appear to travel across networks w, t, and z to get to Host 2 instead of taking the path w, x, y, and z because the tunnel hop count appears shorter. In fact, the packets going through the tunnel will still be traveling across Router A, B, and C, but they must also travel to Router D before coming back to Router C.
-
A tunnel may have a recursive routing problem if routing is not configured accurately. The best path to a tunnel destination is via the tunnel itself; therefore recursive routing causes the tunnel interface to flap. To avoid recursive routing problems, keep the control-plane routing separate from the tunnel routing by using the following methods: - Use a different autonomous system number or tag.
- Use a different routing protocol.
- Ensure that static routes are used to override the first hop (watch for routing loops).
%TUN-RECURDOWN Interface Tunnel 0 temporarily disabled due to recursive routing