Re: encapsulation failed? forus FALSE? sendself FALSE? Huh?

What lab is this? Spanning-tree topology shouldn't matter since only
redundant paths are blocked. If there was a misconfiguration with MST,
perhaps it could be an issue. Can you post relevant parts of the configs
(SVIs, trunk ports, MST config), "sho interface trunk".

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Hammer <bhmccie_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm using a proctorlabs rack. S1 is a 3550. Everything is using SVIs.
>
> 3550 - 12.2.(44)
> and
> 3560s - 12.2.(25r)SEC
>
> The tasks of the lab require one instance of spanning tree (MST 0) so all
> my
> vlans are going from S2 to S1. If I tamper with the cost of the interface,
> I
> can bring up the S2 to S4 leg but I kill the S2 to S1 leg. So I can make it
> work but only by sacrificing another path.
>
> -Hammer
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Ryan West <rwest_at_zyedge.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Do you have a 3550 in the mix with a physical interface that has an IP
> > address assigned to it or is everything using SVIs? If that is the case,
> > just move the address to an SVI. Verify your VLAN allow list and check
> your
> > trunk links to make sure the VLAN you're trying to reach is showing up in
> > the list.
> >
> > The first issue that I mentioned is detailed in this post:
> >
> >
> >
> http://forum.internetworkexpert.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/14757/page/1#Post14757
> >
> > -ryan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > Hammer
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 1:15 PM
> > To: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
> > Subject: encapsulation failed? forus FALSE? sendself FALSE? Huh?
> >
> > I am trying to bring up ip over a VLAN between two switches. It's a
> typical
> > vendor lab with 4 switches and way too many connections.
> >
> > 1X = 1 wire trunking all vlans
> > 2X = 2 wires trunking all vlans
> > EC = EtherChannel trunking all vlans
> >
> > S1---------1x-----------S2
> > | \ / |
> > | \ / |
> > | \ / |
> > | \ / |
> > 2x EC EC 2x
> > | \ / |
> > | \ / |
> > | \ / |
> > | \ / |
> > | \ / |
> > | X |
> > | / \ |
> > | / \ |
> > | / \ |
> > | / \ |
> > | / \ |
> > | / \ |
> > | / \ |
> > | / \ |
> > | / \ |
> > S3-------1X-----------S4
> >
> > So I need OSPF in this little party but IP first. I can ping east/west
> > (from
> > 1-2 and from 3-4) and I can ping north/south (from 1-3) but I cannot ping
> > from 2-4. The vlan they need is active. The vlan interface is up/up on
> each
> > of the switches. But I can't reach the other side of the VLAN. So first I
> > see that spanning tree is preferring my EC links. No problem. Jack up the
> > cost to oblivion and move on. Nope. Still no love. On a debug ip packet,
> I
> > come up with the below:
> >
> > BLAH BLAH BLAH, routed via FIB
> > BLAH BLAH BLAH sending
> > BLAH BLAH BLAH output feature, Check hwidb(63), rtype 1, forus FALSE,
> > sendself FALSE, mtu 0
> > BLAH BLAH BLAH encapsulation failed
> >
> > I only found two links on google and none for cco for the forus FALSE
> > sendself FALSE. Both links were questions with no answers. Has anyone
> seen
> > this before? Is this part of my encapsulation failure? Or am I barking up
> > the wrong tree? My logic was that if I was dealing with a spanning tree
> > issue the traffic would still exit the switch....
> >
> > Help?
> >
> >
> >
> > -Hammer
> >
> >
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Bryan Bartik
CCIE #23707 (R&S), CCNP
Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc.
URL: http://www.IPexpert.com
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net