From: McCallum, Robert (robert.mccallum@thus.net)
Date: Thu Nov 11 2004 - 07:29:54 GMT-3
you have a host route untagged - BAD NEWS. Can you show a show mpls
neighbor.
Robert McCallum
CCIE #8757 R&S
01415663448
07818002241
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dalu-Chandu, Jay [mailto:JD163604@NCR.COM]
> Sent: 11 November 2004 09:57
> To: Mike Bernico
> Cc: comserv@groupstudy.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com; Mark Lewis
> Subject: RE: MPLS/VPN/ISIS
>
>
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for your advice. I have done all the basic checks and
> confirmed my configuration. I have also tested this scenario
> using 3 different routers successfully.
>
> I have tried clearing the cef table and reloading R5 but the
> same problem persists. I have noticed that labels are being
> propagated and received for R1's loopback address but not
> installed in the Lfib. See commands below;
>
> R5#show mpls ldp bindings 192.168.1.1 32
> tib entry: 192.168.1.1/32, rev 65
> local binding: tag: 508
> remote binding: tsr: 192.168.3.3:0, tag: 307
> R5#show mpls forwarding-table 192.168.1.1
> Local Outgoing Prefix Bytes tag Outgoing Next Hop
> tag tag or VC or Tunnel Id switched interface
> 508 Untagged 192.168.1.1/32 0 Se4/3 point2point
> R5#show ip cef 192.168.1.1
> 192.168.1.1/32, version 47, epoch 0, cached adjacency to
> Serial4/3 0 packets, 0 bytes
> tag information set, shared
> local tag: 508
> via 172.16.35.6, Serial4/3, 1 dependency
> next hop 172.16.35.6, Serial4/3
> valid cached adjacency
> tag rewrite with Se4/3, point2point, tags imposed: {}
>
> The mpls ping command is available and works both ways.
> R5#ping tag 192.168.1.1
>
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.1.1, timeout is 2
> seconds: !!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip
> min/avg/max = 16/16/20 ms R5#
>
> R1#ping tag 192.168.5.5
>
> Type escape sequence to abort.
> Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.5.5, timeout is 2
> seconds: !!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip
> min/avg/max = 16/16/20 ms R1#
>
> Any further thoughts?
>
> Regards
>
> Jay
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Bernico [mailto:mbernico@illinois.net]
> Sent: 10 November 2004 19:45
> To: Dalu-Chandu, Jay; comserv@groupstudy.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: MPLS/VPN/ISIS
>
> Hard to say without your configs. Here are some things to
> try that might help...
>
> Since you're only getting one label in your cef show command,
> you must be missing one.
>
> Does your version of IOS support mpls ping? That definitely
> helps. If it does, do an extended mpls ping from loopback to
> loopback and verify you've got yourself an LSP that works.
>
> It sounds like you've already done the most important part,
> by making sure that the exact route exists end-to-end for
> your loopbacks.
>
> Also you should probably verify the obvious stuff if you
> haven't. LDP neighbors, cef on all routers, stuff like that.
>
> Also maybe use "show mpls forwarding-table" to check the lsp
> by hand if you can't mpls ping.
>
> Ok, so then if all that works, maybe it is the label BGP
> sends? Possibly check to make sure that neighbor x.x.x.x
> send-community extended is turned on.
>
> Anyway, that's what I'd try first. Let me know what it is
> when you find it!
>
> Good Luck,
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dalu-Chandu, Jay [mailto:JD163604@NCR.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 11:50 AM
> To: comserv@groupstudy.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: MPLS/VPN/ISIS
>
> Guys,
>
> I have a question regarding a sample lab configuration I'm
> currently working on. The IGP used is ISIS with two areas
> 49.0001 and 49.0005. Within area 1 I have an L1 only router
> attached to a L1L2 router, which is in turn attached to a L2
> router in area 5.
>
> R1(L1)--------R3(L1/L2)----------R5(L2)
>
> R1 and R5 are PE routers, R3 is a P router. A BGP
> relationship for vpnv4 has been established to the loopbacks
> of the PE devices. I can see the vrf routes associated on
> each PE device. When I try to ping an IP address within the
> vrf from R1 to R5 I see cef drops (debug ip cef drops). I
> notice that no label exists for the next-hop-address of R5
> because I am only receiving the default from R3. To correct
> this I route-leaked L2 into L1 for R5's loopback.
>
> Now I have a label and no more cef packet drops on R1. But I
> still cannot ping. R5 complains that it does not have a
> parent tag when I try pinging from there (debug ip cef
> drops). I also notice that only a single label is imposed
> when looking at show ip cef vrf xxx A.B.C.D? Can anyone
> help, am I missing something obvious?
>
> Regards
>
> Jay Dalu-Chandu
>
> --
> Network Consultant (BEng, CCNP)
> NCR UK Limited
> Mobile: 07803231944
> Email: jay.dalu-chandu@ncr.com
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/comserv.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> _________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 02 2004 - 06:57:41 GMT-3