Re: Ping fails across VRF

Please enable LDP on interface Se0/1/0 on R1 and on Fa0/1 on R5. Both R1 and
R5 are P routers, so they should have labels for each and every prefix
especially the ones for the PE's.You are seeing a Untagged label, which
means that the prefix isn't advertised correctly in the IGP or the interface
doesn't have a correct LDP neighbor.

The only place where you can see 'Untagged' routes are on the PE's for
prefixes within the VPN going to the CE.

--
Regards,
Rick Mur
CCIE2 #21946 (R&S / Service Provider)
Sr. Support Engineer  IPexpert, Inc.
URL: http://www.IPexpert.com
On Sun, Aug 30, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Christopher Copley <copley.chris_at_gmail.com
> wrote:
> Bryan,
>
> I tried to remove the Lo0 from IGP and that did not work.   R1/R3 and R5/R6
> are LDP peers.  I have the MP-BGP peering on R3 and R6 via Lo0.  And if I
> can not get the Lo0 to be a tagged packet then I think I have an IOS bug or
> limitation.   would this be correct.
>
> Chris
>
> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Bryan Bartik <bbartik_at_ipexpert.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Chris,
> >
> > You are right, you should see "pop" for PHP. If you see untagged this is
> > because you have not received a label for it. This is why I said check
> your
> > peerings and make sure CEF is enabled. In some older codes, CEF is not on
> by
> > default. Are R1/R3 and R5/R6 LDP Peers?
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Christopher Copley <
> > copley.chris_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Bryan,
> >>
> >> This in my Topo...
> >>
> >> CE---R3---R1----R5----R6----CE
> >>
> >> If I look on R1 to see the ldp forwarding table I see...
> >>
> >> Rack2R1#sho mpls forwarding-table | inc (155.2.6.6/32|155.2.3.3/32<
> http://155.2.6.6/32%7C155.2.3.3/32>
> >> )
> >> 16     Untagged    155.2.3.3/32      12288      Se0/1/0    point2point
> >> 18     16          155.2.6.6/32      13036      Fa0/0      150.1.15.5
> >> Rack2R1#
> >>
> >>
> >> and on R5 I see...
> >>
> >> Rack2R5#sho mpls forwarding-table | inc (155.2.6.6/32|155.2.3.3/32<
> http://155.2.6.6/32%7C155.2.3.3/32>
> >> )
> >> 16     Untagged    155.2.6.6/32      8973       Fa0/1      150.1.56.6
> >> 18     16          155.2.3.3/32      16955      Fa0/0      150.1.15.1
> >> Rack2R5#
> >>
> >> If what I have been reading is correct, then R1 and R5 are sending the
> >> mpls lable as a ipv4 packet to R3 &R6 respectively.
> >> I have my MP-BGP peerings between R3&R6 via the Lo0 interface.
> >> I believe that instead of Untagged in the above output I should be
> seeing
> >> "Pop Label" that is the PHP process, right?
> >> Then R3 and R6 will untag the packet and direct it to the correct VRF
> and
> >> an IPv4 packet, Correct?
> >>
> >> If the above logic is correct will taking the Lo0 out of my IGP correct
> >> this issue?  Or is this some strange IOS bug?
> >>
> >> Chris
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:06 PM, Bryan Bartik <bbartik_at_ipexpert.com
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> Chris,
> >>>
> >>> You don't need to enable mpls on a loopback. Just out the loopback in
> >>> your IGP and labels will get advertised. What makes you think PHP is
> >>> happening to seen? If you see a "no-label" instead of "pop-label" in
> the
> >>> LFIB, this is not PHP. Make sure you have CEF enabled and your LDP
> peerings
> >>> are UP throughout the cloud. Let me know what you find.
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Christopher Copley <
> >>> copley.chris_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I think I know what is going on....The PHP process is occurring to
> soon,
> >>>> by
> >>>> one router.  I tried to enable mpls ip on the Lo0 interface and get an
> >>>> error...
> >>>>
> >>>> % MPLS not supported on interface Loopback0
> >>>>
> >>>> Is this an IOS version limitation or a default behavior?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Chris
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Christopher Copley
> >>>> <copley.chris_at_gmail.com>wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> > Sorry all pressed send by mistake WAY to early,
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Anyway...
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I have one VPN and at each of the CE routers I can see the routes
> from
> >>>> each
> >>>> > other across my MPLS backbone.   But ping fails across the Core from
> >>>> CE to
> >>>> > CE, but the routes are there and look correct.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I have MP-BPG between each PE and the router appear in each VPN.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Any ideas?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Chris
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Christopher Copley <
> >>>> > copley.chris_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> Experts,
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> I have an interesting problem with my MPLS study.   I am new to
> MPLS
> >>>> and
> >>>> >> MPLS VPNS and I have got to a place where I am stuck.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net