Re: MPLS tagging issue

I lied. in my troubleshooting of MPLS I have apparently broken R4's ability
to ping R3. I will fix and repost.

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 6:42 AM, Brian Buxton <herrbuxy_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 - 06:43:43 ART