|
Posted by Peter Danes on September 22, 2008, 8:00 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Hi,
I copied the MPLS VPN configuration (with slight modifications) from the
following document but can't ping any remote addresses in the VRF.
http://www.cisco.com/en/U...ple09186a00800a6c11.shtml
The routing tables/path on all of the PE routers are correct and there
are no ACL's that would be restricting ICMP traffic.
I've also set the MTU/MPLS MTU and it still fails encapsulation.
Can anyone think of a reason why MPLS encapsulation is failing? I can a
provide a copy of the configuration on each router is required.
******************************************************************
Output of debug IP packet:
R5#ping vrf Customer_A 192.168.4.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.4.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
*Mar 1 05:58:55.021: IP: tableid=1, s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1
(FastEthernet0/0), routed via FIB
*Mar 1 05:58:55.021: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1
(FastEthernet0/0), len 100, sending
*Mar 1 05:58:55.021: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1
(FastEthernet0/0), len 100, MPLS encapsulation failed
*Mar 1 05:58:55.390: IP: s=5.5.5.5 (local), d=224.0.0.10 (Loopback0),
len 60, sending broad/multicast
*Mar 1 05:58:55.390: IP: s=5.5.5.5 (Loopback0), d=224.0.0.10, len 60, rcvd 2
*Mar 1 05:58:55.450: IP: s=10.1.1.5 (local), d=224.0.0.10
(FastEthernet0/0), len 60, sending broad/multicast
*Mar 1 05:58:55.450: IP: s=10.1.1.5 (FastEthernet0/0), d=224.0.0.10, len
60, rcvd 2.
*Mar 1 05:58:56.584: IP: s=10.1.1.1 (FastEthernet0/0), d=224.0.0.10, len
60, rcvd 2
*Mar 1 05:58:57.025: IP: tableid=1, s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1
(FastEthernet0/0), routed via FIB
*Mar 1 05:58:57.025: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1
(FastEthernet0/0), len 100, sending
*Mar 1 05:58:57.025: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1
(FastEthernet0/0), len 100, MPLS encapsulation failed.
*Mar 1 05:58:57.918: IP: s=10.1.1.5 (local), d=255.255.255.255
(FastEthernet0/0), len 48, sending broad/multicast
*Mar 1 05:58:58.130: IP: s=10.1.1.1 (FastEthernet0/0),
d=255.255.255.255, len 48, rcvd 0
*Mar 1 05:58:59.028: IP: tableid=1, s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1
(FastEthernet0/0), routed via FIB
*Mar 1 05:58:59.028: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1
(FastEthernet0/0), len 100, sending
*Mar 1 05:58:59.028: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1
(FastEthernet0/0), len 100, MPLS encapsulation failed
*Mar 1 05:58:59.753: IP: s=5.5.5.5 (local), d=224.0.0.10 (Loopback0),
len 60, sending broad/multicast
*Mar 1 05:58:59.753: IP: s=5.5.5.5 (Loopback0), d=224.0.0.10, len 60,
rcvd 2.
*Mar 1 05:59:00.342: IP: s=10.1.1.5 (local), d=224.0.0.10
(FastEthernet0/0), len 60, sending broad/multicast
*Mar 1 05:59:00.342: IP: s=10.1.1.5 (FastEthernet0/0), d=224.0.0.10, len
60, rcvd 2
*Mar 1 05:59:01.027: IP: tableid=1, s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1
(FastEthernet0/0), routed via FIB
*Mar 1 05:59:01.027: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1
(FastEthernet0/0), len 100, sending
*Mar 1 05:59:01.027: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1
(FastEthernet0/0), len 100, MPLS encapsulation failed
*Mar 1 05:59:01.512: IP: s=10.1.1.1 (FastEthernet0/0), d=224.0.0.10, len
60, rcvd 2
*Mar 1 05:59:01.941: IP: s=10.1.1.5 (local), d=255.255.255.255
(FastEthernet0/0), len 48, sending broad/multicast.
*Mar 1 05:59:02.894: IP: s=10.1.1.1 (FastEthernet0/0),
d=255.255.255.255, len 48, rcvd 0
*Mar 1 05:59:03.031: IP: tableid=1, s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1
(FastEthernet0/0), routed via FIB
*Mar 1 05:59:03.031: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1
(FastEthernet0/0), len 100, sending
*Mar 1 05:59:03.031: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1
(FastEthernet0/0), len 100, MPLS encapsulation failed.
Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
******************************************************************
|
|
Posted by Matthew Melbourne on September 22, 2008, 8:38 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Hi,
> I copied the MPLS VPN configuration (with slight modifications) from the
> following document but can't ping any remote addresses in the VRF.
> http://www.cisco.com/en/U...ple09186a00800a6c11.shtml
> The routing tables/path on all of the PE routers are correct and there
> are no ACL's that would be restricting ICMP traffic.
> I've also set the MTU/MPLS MTU and it still fails encapsulation.
> Can anyone think of a reason why MPLS encapsulation is failing? I can a
> provide a copy of the configuration on each router is required.
The configs would be helpful. You do have a global 'ip cef' and 'mpls ip'
configured under all interfaces connecting P/PE routers?
Cheers,
Matt
--
Matthew Melbourne
|
|
Posted by Merv on September 22, 2008, 8:45 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Does R5 have a label for the destination being pinged ???
Without a label, MPLS cannot complete packet encap
|
|
Posted by Peter Danes on September 22, 2008, 10:10 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Merv wrote:
> Does R5 have a label for the destination being pinged ???
>
> Without a label, MPLS cannot complete packet encap
Hmm, I don't see any labels for the vrf "Customer_A":
R5#show mpls ldp bind vrf Customer_A
TIB not enabled
But I do have labels for my global routing table:
R5#show mpls ldp bind
tib entry: 1.1.1.1/32, rev 16
local binding: tag: 23
remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: imp-null
tib entry: 2.2.2.2/32, rev 18
local binding: tag: 24
remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 20
tib entry: 3.3.3.3/32, rev 20
local binding: tag: 25
remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 21
tib entry: 4.4.4.4/32, rev 14
local binding: tag: 22
remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 19
tib entry: 5.5.5.5/32, rev 2
local binding: tag: imp-null
remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 22
tib entry: 6.6.6.6/32, rev 10
local binding: tag: 20
remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 17
tib entry: 10.1.1.0/24, rev 4
local binding: tag: imp-null
remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: imp-null
tib entry: 10.2.2.0/24, rev 8
local binding: tag: 19
remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 16
tib entry: 10.3.3.0/24, rev 12
local binding: tag: 21
remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 18
tib entry: 10.11.11.0/24, rev 21
remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: imp-null
tib entry: 172.12.123.0/24, rev 6
local binding: tag: 18
remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: imp-null
Is the above expected or should I be looking into the "TIB not enabled"
message? I don't think I've even come across that term in my recent studies.
|
|
Posted by Peter Danes on September 22, 2008, 10:13 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Peter Danes wrote:
> Merv wrote:
>> Does R5 have a label for the destination being pinged ???
>>
>> Without a label, MPLS cannot complete packet encap
>
> Hmm, I don't see any labels for the vrf "Customer_A":
>
> R5#show mpls ldp bind vrf Customer_A
> TIB not enabled
>
> But I do have labels for my global routing table:
>
> R5#show mpls ldp bind
> tib entry: 1.1.1.1/32, rev 16
> local binding: tag: 23
> remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: imp-null
> tib entry: 2.2.2.2/32, rev 18
> local binding: tag: 24
> remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 20
> tib entry: 3.3.3.3/32, rev 20
> local binding: tag: 25
> remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 21
> tib entry: 4.4.4.4/32, rev 14
> local binding: tag: 22
> remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 19
> tib entry: 5.5.5.5/32, rev 2
> local binding: tag: imp-null
> remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 22
> tib entry: 6.6.6.6/32, rev 10
> local binding: tag: 20
> remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 17
> tib entry: 10.1.1.0/24, rev 4
> local binding: tag: imp-null
> remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: imp-null
> tib entry: 10.2.2.0/24, rev 8
> local binding: tag: 19
> remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 16
> tib entry: 10.3.3.0/24, rev 12
> local binding: tag: 21
> remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 18
> tib entry: 10.11.11.0/24, rev 21
> remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: imp-null
> tib entry: 172.12.123.0/24, rev 6
> local binding: tag: 18
> remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: imp-null
>
> Is the above expected or should I be looking into the "TIB not enabled"
> message? I don't think I've even come across that term in my recent
> studies.
>
Further to the above:
R5#show mpls forwarding-table
Local Outgoing Prefix Bytes tag Outgoing Next Hop
tag tag or VC or Tunnel Id switched interface
16 Aggregate 192.168.5.0/24[V] 0
17 Aggregate 192.168.5.0/24[V] 0
18 Pop tag 172.12.123.0/24 0 Fa0/0 10.1.1.1
19 16 10.2.2.0/24 0 Fa0/0 10.1.1.1
20 17 6.6.6.6/32 0 Fa0/0 10.1.1.1
21 18 10.3.3.0/24 0 Fa0/0 10.1.1.1
22 19 4.4.4.4/32 0 Fa0/0 10.1.1.1
23 Pop tag 1.1.1.1/32 0 Fa0/0 10.1.1.1
24 20 2.2.2.2/32 0 Fa0/0 10.1.1.1
25 21 3.3.3.3/32 0 Fa0/0 10.1.1.1
R5#show mpls forwarding-table vrf Customer_A
Local Outgoing Prefix Bytes tag Outgoing Next Hop
tag tag or VC or Tunnel Id switched interface
16 Aggregate 192.168.5.0/24[V] 0
It looks like the LFIB is missing a few entries.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | MPLS: DiffServ & TE paths are really required to deploy commercial VoIP over a MPLS network. | August 16, 2005, 6:34 am |
| Help in understanding an MPLS network (MPLS newbie) | November 12, 2007, 1:23 pm |
| Encapsulation failed on 1721 | May 30, 2006, 8:27 am |
| Bridge Group question... "Encapsulation Failed" on a BVI... | July 7, 2006, 7:20 pm |
| encapsulation failed when add 'dialer inband' (aux back to back) | July 19, 2004, 12:29 am |
| CEF or MPLS | November 24, 2004, 6:39 am |
| PTP vs. MPLS | March 10, 2005, 4:17 am |
| MPLS or not ? | February 8, 2006, 8:14 pm |
| MPLS | May 1, 2007, 3:35 pm |
| How to recover from MPLS TDP/LDP down? (IOS Bug?) | April 17, 2005, 8:02 am |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map