Re: MPLS tagging issue

Yes. All of the P and PE can ping all Lo0 and S0/0 interfaces. I tried
debug mpls ldp messages sent and received and observed the following.

*Mar 1 13:38:17.432: tagcon: tibent(3.3.3.3/32): label 25 from 2.2.2.2:0added
*Mar 1 13:38:17.432: tib: Not OK to announce label; nh 10.10.10.3 not bound
to
2.2.2.2:0
*Mar 1 13:38:17.436: tagcon: omit announce labels for: 3.3.3.3/32; nh
10.10.10.
3, Se0/0.42, from 2.2.2.2:0: add rem binding: next hop = 10.10.10.3

It appears as though R4 sees R2's tag, but rejects it because the next hop
isn't bound to R2. Any ideas on how to correct? Adrian asked me to post
the configs. That would be an awfully long post, but I can certainly
forward them to the list if you want.
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Tyson Scott <tscott_at_ipexpert.com> wrote:

> Does R4 know how to get to 3.3.3.3? is it in the routing table? Are all
> the LDP source addresses in the RIB?
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Tyson Scott - CCIE #13513 R&S, Security, and SP
>
> Managing Partner / Sr. Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
>
> Mailto: tscott_at_ipexpert.com
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Buxton [mailto:herrbuxy_at_gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 24, 2010 5:09 PM
>
> *To:* Tyson Scott
> *Cc:* CCIE Groupstudy
> *Subject:* Re: MPLS tagging issue
>
>
>
> I applied the commands and it changed the order that the IP bindings appear
> (so that the Lo0 is first). However still no ping from the CE to CE.
>
>
>
> Interestingly, Both the CE on R5 and the CE on R3 can ping all advertised
> addresses on the CE on R2. They just can't get to each other.
>
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Tyson Scott <tscott_at_ipexpert.com> wrote:
>
> It looks like R4 is the only one sourcing LDP from it's loopback
>
>
>
> Do the following on them and see if this solves the problem
>
> mpls ldp router-id lo0 force
>
>
>
> Also on R4 make sure you have
>
> no bgp default route-target filter
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Tyson Scott - CCIE #13513 R&S, Security, and SP
>
> Managing Partner / Sr. Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
>
> Mailto: tscott_at_ipexpert.com
>
> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444, ext. 208
>
> Live Assistance, Please visit: www.ipexpert.com/chat
>
> eFax: +1.810.454.0130
>
>
>
> IPexpert is a premier provider of Self-Study Workbooks, Video on Demand,
> Audio Tools, Online Hardware Rental and Classroom Training for the Cisco
> CCIE (R&S, Voice, Security & Service Provider) certification(s) with
> training locations throughout the United States, Europe, South Asia and
> Australia. Be sure to visit our online communities at
> www.ipexpert.com/communities and our public website at www.ipexpert.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Brian Buxton [mailto:herrbuxy_at_gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 24, 2010 4:10 PM
> *To:* Tyson Scott
> *Cc:* CCIE Groupstudy
> *Subject:* Re: MPLS tagging issue
>
>
>
> Command output from each router follows. It seems to me that 3.3.3.3 does
> appear to be an address bound between R2 and R3.
>
>
>
> R3#sh mpls ldp neigh
> Peer LDP Ident: 10.10.10.2:0; Local LDP Ident 10.10.10.3:0
> TCP connection: 10.10.10.2.646 - 10.10.10.3.43726
> State: Oper; Msgs sent/rcvd: 380/381; Downstream
> Up time: 05:25:30
> LDP discovery sources:
> Serial0/0, Src IP addr: 10.10.10.2
> Addresses bound to peer LDP Ident:
> 10.10.10.2 2.2.2.2
>
> R2#sh mpls ldp neigh
> Peer LDP Ident: 10.10.10.3:0; Local LDP Ident 10.10.10.2:0
> TCP connection: 10.10.10.3.43726 - 10.10.10.2.646
> State: Oper; Msgs sent/rcvd: 381/380; Downstream
> Up time: 05:25:52
> LDP discovery sources:
> Serial0/0, Src IP addr: 10.10.10.3
> * Addresses bound to peer LDP Ident:**
> 10.10.10.3 3.3.3.3
> * Peer LDP Ident: 4.4.4.4:0; Local LDP Ident 10.10.10.2:0
> TCP connection: 4.4.4.4.646 - 10.10.10.2.56602
> State: Oper; Msgs sent/rcvd: 66/67; Downstream
> Up time: 00:50:37
> LDP discovery sources:
> Serial0/0, Src IP addr: 10.10.10.4
> Addresses bound to peer LDP Ident:
> 10.10.10.4 10.10.15.4 4.4.4.4
>
> R4#sh mpls ldp neigh
> Peer LDP Ident: 10.10.15.5:0; Local LDP Ident 4.4.4.4:0
> TCP connection: 10.10.15.5.49240 - 4.4.4.4.646
> State: Oper; Msgs sent/rcvd: 68/69; Downstream
> Up time: 00:52:39
> LDP discovery sources:
> Serial0/0.45, Src IP addr: 10.10.15.5
> Addresses bound to peer LDP Ident:
> 10.10.15.5 5.5.5.5
> Peer LDP Ident: 10.10.10.2:0; Local LDP Ident 4.4.4.4:0
> TCP connection: 10.10.10.2.56602 - 4.4.4.4.646
> State: Oper; Msgs sent/rcvd: 68/67; Downstream
> Up time: 00:51:13
> LDP discovery sources:
> Serial0/0.42, Src IP addr: 10.10.10.2
> Addresses bound to peer LDP Ident:
> 10.10.10.2 2.2.2.2
>
> R5#sh mpls ldp neigh
> Peer LDP Ident: 4.4.4.4:0; Local LDP Ident 10.10.15.5:0
> TCP connection: 4.4.4.4.646 - 10.10.15.5.49240
> State: Oper; Msgs sent/rcvd: 69/69; Downstream
> Up time: 00:52:57
> LDP discovery sources:
> Serial0/0.54, Src IP addr: 10.10.15.4
> Addresses bound to peer LDP Ident:
> 10.10.10.4 10.10.15.4 4.4.4.4
>
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Tyson Scott <tscott_at_ipexpert.com> wrote:
>
> What is the output of show mpls ldp neighbors? Is R3 sending the Lo to R4
> as a route it is sending labels for?
>
> Regards,
>
> Tyson Scott - CCIE #13513 R&S, Security, and SP
> Managing Partner / Sr. Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
> Mailto: tscott_at_ipexpert.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Brian Buxton
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 3:30 PM
> To: CCIE Groupstudy
> Subject: MPLS tagging issue
>
> Hello all,
>
> I am having trouble with a loopback not being tagged by a P router. R3 Lo0
> can ping R5 Lo0, however the CE on vrf RED attached to R3 cannot ping the
> CE
> on vrf RED attached to R5 even though the networks are making it to both PE
> BGP tables. I think I have narrowed the issue to a P router (R4) that has
> no CE attached. It does not appear to be tagging the R3 Lo0. This seems
> to
> permit BGP to propogate, but break the actual traffic between the VRFs. I
> am including "sh ip bgp vpnv4 vrf RED" on both R3 and R5 as well as "sh
> mpls
> forwarding-table" on R2 and R4. Note the line in the R4 output that reads
> "18 Untagged 3.3.3.3/3 ..." This is what leads me to believe the
> problem lies on either R2 or R4. Any guidance is appreciated.
> Thank you,
> Brian
>
> R3 - R2 - R4 - R5
>
> R3 Lo0 = 3.3.3.3
> R5 Lo0 = 5.5.5.5
>
> R3#sh ip bgp vpnv4 vrf RED
> BGP table version is 237, local router ID is 10.10.10.3
> Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i -
> internal,
> r RIB-failure, S Stale
> Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
>
> Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
> Route Distinguisher: 65080:70 (default for vrf RED)
> *>i6.6.6.6/32 5.5.5.5 0 100 0 65060 i
> *>i7.7.7.7/32 2.2.2.2 0 100 0 65070 i
> *> 8.8.8.8/32 192.168.80.2 0 0 65080 i
> *>i160.100.100.0/24 5.5.5.5 0 100 0 65060 i
> *>i160.110.110.0/24 5.5.5.5 0 100 0 65060 i
> *>i160.120.120.0/24 5.5.5.5 0 100 0 65060 i
> *>i170.100.100.0/24 2.2.2.2 0 100 0 65070 i
> *>i170.110.110.0/24 2.2.2.2 0 100 0 65070 i
> *>i170.120.120.0/24 2.2.2.2 0 100 0 65070 i
> *> 180.100.100.0/24 192.168.80.2 0 0 65080 i
> *> 180.110.110.0/24 192.168.80.2 0 0 65080 i
> *> 180.120.120.0/24 192.168.80.2 0 0 65080 i
> *>i192.168.60.0 5.5.5.5 0 100 0 65060 i
> *>i192.168.70.0 2.2.2.2 0 100 0 65070 i
> r> 192.168.80.0 192.168.80.2 0 0 65080 i
>
> R5#sh ip bgp vpnv4 vrf RED
> BGP table version is 252, local router ID is 10.10.15.5
> Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i -
> internal,
> r RIB-failure, S Stale
> Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete
>
> Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
> Route Distinguisher: 65080:70 (default for vrf RED)
> *> 6.6.6.6/32 192.168.60.2 0 0 65060 i
> *>i7.7.7.7/32 2.2.2.2 0 100 0 65070 i
> *>i8.8.8.8/32 3.3.3.3 0 100 0 65080 i
> *> 160.100.100.0/24 192.168.60.2 0 0 65060 i
> *> 160.110.110.0/24 192.168.60.2 0 0 65060 i
> *> 160.120.120.0/24 192.168.60.2 0 0 65060 i
> *>i170.100.100.0/24 2.2.2.2 0 100 0 65070 i
> *>i170.110.110.0/24 2.2.2.2 0 100 0 65070 i
> *>i170.120.120.0/24 2.2.2.2 0 100 0 65070 i
> *>i180.100.100.0/24 3.3.3.3 0 100 0 65080 i
> *>i180.110.110.0/24 3.3.3.3 0 100 0 65080 i
> *>i180.120.120.0/24 3.3.3.3 0 100 0 65080 i
> r> 192.168.60.0 192.168.60.2 0 0 65060 i
> *>i192.168.70.0 2.2.2.2 0 100 0 65070 i
> *>i192.168.80.0 3.3.3.3 0 100 0 65080 i
>
> R2#sh mpls forwarding-table
> Local Outgoing Prefix Bytes tag Outgoing Next Hop
> tag tag or VC or Tunnel Id switched interface
> 16 Pop tag 10.10.15.0/24 0 Se0/0 10.10.10.4
> 17 Untagged 170.120.120.0/24[V] <http://170.120.120.0/24%5bV%5d>
> \
> 0 Fa0/0 192.168.70.2
> 18 Untagged 170.110.110.0/24[V] <http://170.110.110.0/24%5bV%5d>
> \
> 0 Fa0/0 192.168.70.2
> 19 Untagged 170.100.100.0/24[V] <http://170.100.100.0/24%5bV%5d>
> \
> 684 Fa0/0 192.168.70.2
> 20 Untagged 7.7.7.7/32[V] <http://7.7.7.7/32%5bV%5d> 1254
> Fa0/0 192.168.70.2
> 21 16 5.5.5.5/32 0 Se0/0 10.10.10.4
> 22 Pop tag 3.3.3.3/32 0 Se0/0 10.10.10.3
> 23 Pop tag 4.4.4.4/32 0 Se0/0 10.10.10.4
>
> R4#sh mpls forwarding-table
> Local Outgoing Prefix Bytes tag Outgoing Next Hop
> tag tag or VC or Tunnel Id switched interface
> 16 Pop tag 5.5.5.5/32 872 Se0/0.45 point2point
> 17 Pop tag 2.2.2.2/32 598 Se0/0.42 10.10.10.2
>
> *18 Untagged 3.3.3.3/32 0 Se0/0.42 10.10.10.3*
>
>
> 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 Fri Jun 25 2010 - 06:42:03 ART