From: Frank (ocsic@web.de)
Date: Thu Sep 21 2006 - 10:14:09 ART
Frank schrieb:
Hi,
Well, i did not found a reason for this.
interface virtual-template1
ip unnumbered lo0
does not help. But maybe these error messages are just neglectable.
Because interfaces don't have an layer 3 address.
For the one virtual-access interface with an ip address there are no
encapsulation errors.
Frank
PS: Someone replied and i lost the mail. Maybe he can reply again.
*Mar 1 00:12:45.362: IP: s=150.1.2.2 (local), d=224.0.0.5
(Virtual-Access1), len 76, sending broad/multicast
*Mar 1 00:12:45.362: IP: s=150.1.2.2 (local), d=224.0.0.5
(Virtual-Access1), len 76, encapsulation failed
*Mar 1 00:12:45.386: IP: s=150.1.2.2 (local), d=224.0.0.5
(Virtual-Access2), len 76, sending broad/multicast
*Mar 1 00:12:45.386: IP: s=150.1.2.2 (local), d=224.0.0.5
(Virtual-Access2), len 76, encapsulation failed
*Mar 1 00:12:45.422: IP: s=150.1.2.2 (local), d=224.0.0.5
(Virtual-Access4), len 80, sending broad/multicast
>
> Multilink PPP over Frame-Relay
>
>
> As i found out, there are two possible ways to configure this, one is
> with an multilink interface on
> top of one virtual-template and the other is with virtual-template1 only.
>
>
> This time i checked with "debug ip packet detail" what is beeing send
> on the s0/0 link from R2 to R3.
> And found out, that quite a lot of "encaps failed" messages are
> generated. TCP is trying to send packets
> out of an interface which does not have a layer 3 address.
>
> *Mar 1 00:03:58.691: IP: s=174.1.23.2 (local), d=224.0.0.5
> (Virtual-Access1), len 76, sending broad/multicast, proto=89
> *Mar 1 00:03:58.691: IP: s=174.1.23.2 (local), d=224.0.0.5
> (Virtual-Access1), len 76, encapsulation failed, proto=89
> *Mar 1 00:03:58.699: IP: s=174.1.23.2 (local), d=224.0.0.5
> (Virtual-Access2), len 76, sending broad/multicast, proto=89
> *Mar 1 00:03:58.699: IP: s=174.1.23.2 (local), d=224.0.0.5
> (Virtual-Access2), len 76, encapsulation failed, proto=89
>
>
> These virtual-Access interfaces, are also available as interface, but
> are build dynamically.
> virual-access4 also is up with ip 174.1.23.2.
>
> Is that right? What are these virtual-access interfaces?
>
> Frank
>
>
> Rack1R2#i
> Interface IP-Address OK? Method
> Status Protocol
> Ethernet0/0 174.1.26.2 YES NVRAM
> up up
> Serial0/0 unassigned YES NVRAM
> up up
> Serial0/0.203 unassigned YES unset
> up up
> Serial0/0.213 unassigned YES unset
> up up
> Serial0/1 unassigned YES NVRAM administratively
> down down
> Virtual-Access1 174.1.23.2 YES TFTP
> up up
> Virtual-Template1 174.1.23.2 YES manual
> down down
> Virtual-Access2 174.1.23.2 YES TFTP
> up up
> Virtual-Access3 unassigned YES unset
> down down
> Virtual-Access4 174.1.23.2 YES TFTP
> up up
> Loopback0 150.1.2.2 YES NVRAM
> up up
> Rack1R2#
>
>
>
>
> Config:
>
> r2
> interface Virtual-Template1
> ip address 174.1.23.2 255.255.255.0
> ppp multilink
> !
>
> r3
> interface Virtual-Template1
> ip address 174.1.23.3 255.255.255.0
> ppp multilink
> !
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 01 2006 - 16:55:41 ART