From: Brian McGahan (bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Fri Feb 18 2005 - 23:21:34 GMT-3
*Mar 1 02:04:06.835: IPv6: Encapsulation failed means that it couldn't
find the associated layer 2 address for that particular layer 3 address
(the remote link-local address). Is Serial0 a multipoint Frame Relay
interface? Is so, do you have static layer 3 to layer 2 resolution for
the remote link-local address?
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> Matt Mullen
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 3:38 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: BGP Peering using IPv6 link-local
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Just wondering if anyone else has run into this. I am trying to peer
> R2 to R5 using link-local addresses and the session will not come up.
> R2 and R5 can ping each other's link-local address. BGP debug
> commands don't yield any useful information, however the debug ipv6
> packet detail on R5 shows this:
>
> *Mar 1 02:04:06.827: IPV6: source FE80::260:5CFF:FEF4:15D0 (local)
> *Mar 1 02:04:06.831: dest FE80::210:7BFF:FE35:CC72 (Ethernet0)
> *Mar 1 02:04:06.835: traffic class 192, flow 0x0, len 64+0,
> prot 6, hops 64, originating
> *Mar 1 02:04:06.835: IPv6: Encapsulation failed
>
>
> R5 should be using Serial0 to reach the link-local address of R2, but
> it appears to be trying to use Ethernet0. Here's the configuration:
>
>
> R2#show run | b router bgp
> router bgp 246
> no synchronization
> bgp router-id 2.2.2.2
> no bgp default ipv4-unicast
> bgp log-neighbor-changes
> neighbor FE80::260:5CFF:FEF4:15D0 remote-as 50
> neighbor FE80::260:5CFF:FEF4:15D0 ebgp-multihop 255
> neighbor FE80::260:5CFF:FEF4:15D0 update-source Serial0
> no auto-summary
> !
> address-family ipv4 multicast
> no auto-summary
> no synchronization
> exit-address-family
> !
> address-family ipv6
> neighbor FE80::260:5CFF:FEF4:15D0 activate
> neighbor FE80::260:5CFF:FEF4:15D0 route-map SETNEXTHOP out
>
> exit-address-family
> !
>
>
> R5#show run | b router bgp
> router bgp 50
> no synchronization
> bgp router-id 5.5.5.5
> no bgp default ipv4-unicast
> bgp log-neighbor-changes
> neighbor FE80::210:7BFF:FE35:CC72 remote-as 246
> neighbor FE80::210:7BFF:FE35:CC72 ebgp-multihop 255
> neighbor FE80::210:7BFF:FE35:CC72 update-source Serial0
> no auto-summary
> !
> address-family ipv4 multicast
> no auto-summary
> no synchronization
> exit-address-family
> !
> address-family ipv6
> neighbor FE80::210:7BFF:FE35:CC72 activate
> exit-address-family
>
> What is interesting is that if I hard-code the link-local addresses on
> both of the routers and use the hard-coded addresses for the peering,
> the session comes up fine. So is it necessary to hard-code the
> link-local addresses when using them to set up BGP peering?
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 03 2005 - 08:51:23 GMT-3