Re: MPLS TE router-id

Hi Rin,

No I didn't before so I tried it now.

CE1 -- PE1 ---P ---PE2 --CE2 ( I used lo0 on for TE endpoint)

I removed the mpls ip from all the physical interfaces and enabled it
on the tunnel.
I could then ping from CE1 (vrf A interface on PE1) to the opposite
side. Return did not work unless I had another tunnel pointing back.

PE1#sh mpls ldp neighbor

PE1#
PE1#sh mpls interfaces
Interface IP Tunnel Operational
FastEthernet1/0 No Yes Yes
Tunnel0 Yes No Yes
PE1#

If I remove mpls ip under the tunnel it shows:

PE1#sh mpls interfaces
Interface IP Tunnel Operational
FastEthernet1/0 No Yes Yes
Tunnel0 No No Yes
PE1#

The mpls forwarding table appears the same in both cases so I'm not
sure what to look for to see a different behavior.

-Rich

On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 9:31 PM, Rin<rintrum_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Rich,
>
> Did you enable LDP on the tunnel?
> Rin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich Collins [mailto:nilsi2002_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 3:51 AM
> To: Rin
> Cc: Cisco certification
> Subject: Re: MPLS TE router-id
>
> Yes I was using lo0 for the MP-BGP peering.
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Rin<rintrum_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Rich,
>>
>> What is you topo? Are you using lo0 for MP-BGP peering?
>> Thanks
>> Rin.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rich Collins [mailto:nilsi2002_at_gmail.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 12:45 AM
>> To: Rin
>> Cc: Cisco certification
>> Subject: Re: MPLS TE router-id
>>
>> Hi Rin,
>>
>> I just tried the bgp vpnv4 routes and noticed that I could not ping
>> through the tunnel when it used loop1.
>>
>>
>> If you try this you see that only one tag is imposed and not two as
>> expected. Perhaps there are other clues why this is not working.
>>
>> PE1#sh ip cef vrf A 45.45.45.0 detail
>> 45.45.45.0/24, version 11, epoch 0
>> 0 packets, 0 bytes
>> tag information set
>> local tag: VPN-route-head
>> fast tag rewrite with
>> Recursive rewrite via 2.2.2.2 0x20, tags imposed {21}
>> via 2.2.2.2, 0 dependencies, recursive
>> next hop 20.2.2.2, Tunnel0 via 2.2.2.2/32
>> valid adjacency
>> tag rewrite with
>> Recursive rewrite via 2.2.2.2 0x20, tags imposed {21}
>>
>>
>> -Rich
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Rich Collins<nilsi2002_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I searched the Cisco site and found this:
>>>
>>>
>>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/mpls/configuration/guide/mp_te_expl_addr
>> ess.html
>>> ..........................
>>>
>>> tunnel destination ip-address
>>> Example:
>>>
>>> Router(config-if)# tunnel destination 10.11.11.11
>>>
>>>
>>> Specifies the destination for a tunnel.
>>>
>>> The destination of the tunnel must be the MPLS traffic engineering
>>> router ID of the destination device.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------------------
>>>
>>> So in your example you could change the mpls traffic-eng router-id to
>>> lo1 on R3 and it would work. The R1 tunnel source ip address could be
>>> either lo0 or lo1.
>>>
>>> -Rich
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 5:52 AM, Rin<rintrum_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi group,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have this scenario: R1----R2----R3
>>>>
>>>> All routers are in the same area and configured with ISIS. Loopback 0 &
>>>> loopback 1 are created on R1 & R3. All interface are advertised into
> ISIS
>>>> (include lo0 & lo1). I create a MPLS TE tunnel (R1-->R2-->R3) on R1. The
>>>> MPLS TE router-id is the loopback 0 on each router.
>>>>
>>>> Case 1: If the tunnel source & destination set to lo0, the tunnel is UP.
>>>>
>>>> Case 2: If the tunnel source & destination set to lo1, the tunnel is
>> DOWN.
>>>>
>>>> My explicit-path pointing to lo0 in case 1 & lo1 in case 2
>>>>
>>>> So what is the relationship between router-id and the source IP,
>>>> destionation of the MPLS TE tunnel?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Rin.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Tue Jun 23 2009 - 20:41:52 ART