Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Welcome,
Guest
. Please
login
or
register
.
Did you miss your
activation email
?
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Forever
Login with username, password and session length
Lab Minutes Forum
»
Technical Discussion
»
Routing and Switching
»
AToM not passing traffic even with vc up.
Search
User Info
Username:
Password:
1 Hour
1 Day
1 Week
1 Month
Forever
Welcome,
Guest
. Please
login
or
register
.
Did you miss your
activation email
?
« previous
next »
Print
Pages: [
1
]
Author
Topic: AToM not passing traffic even with vc up. (Read 12603 times)
adecisco
Cisco Newbie
Posts: 96
Reputation: 10
Discovering new solution is sweet!
Certification: N/A
AToM not passing traffic even with vc up.
«
on:
July 09, 2014, 06:43:40 AM »
Dear Community member,
I need you to assist to suggest possible reason for the following issues in the attached diagram.
1. IGP is OSPF
2. mpls is enable across the network.
3. reachability is confirm between the two end cisco router where AToM config is turn on.
4. The environment is mixture of cisco router and mikrotic as depicted in the diagram.
The following are the show command I got but could not find what may be the possible issues with the setup...
=======================================
RT_ATOM_1#ping mpls pseudowire 172.27.11.254 10 reply mode router-alert
Sending 5, 100-byte MPLS Echos to 172.27.11.254,
timeout is 2 seconds, send interval is 0 msec:
Codes: '!' - success, 'Q' - request not sent, '.' - timeout,
'L' - labeled output interface, 'B' - unlabeled output interface,
'D' - DS Map mismatch, 'F' - no FEC mapping, 'f' - FEC mismatch,
'M' - malformed request, 'm' - unsupported tlvs, 'N' - no label entry,
'P' - no rx intf label prot, 'p' - premature termination of LSP,
'R' - transit router, 'I' - unknown upstream index,
'X' - unknown return code, 'x' - return code 0
Type escape sequence to abort.
*Jul 9 10:22:23.227: ATOM-disposition: incoming tag 117441733 in Fa0/0, size 108, packet dropped, Inband Control packet dropped.
*Jul 9 10:22:25.103: ATOM-disposition: incoming tag 117441733 in Fa0/0, size 108, packet dropped, Inband Control packet dropped.
*Jul 9 10:22:27.071: ATOM-disposition: incoming tag 117441733 in Fa0/0, size 108, packet dropped, Inband Control packet dropped.
*Jul 9 10:22:28.939: ATOM-disposition: incoming tag 117441733 in Fa0/0, size 108, packet dropped, Inband Control packet dropped.
*Jul 9 10:22:30.927: ATOM-disposition: incoming tag 117441733 in Fa0/0, size 108, packet dropped, Inband Control packet dropped.
Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
=======================================================================
RT_ATOM_1#sho mpls l2transport vc 10 detail
Local interface: Fa8 up, line protocol up, Ethernet up
Destination address: 172.27.11.254, VC ID: 10, VC status: up
Output interface: Gi0, imposed label stack {142090 1221}
Preferred path: not configured
Default path: active
Next hop: 172.27.1.1
Create time: 00:25:32, last status change time: 00:19:08
Signaling protocol: LDP, peer 172.27.11.254:0 up
Targeted Hello: 172.27.11.252(LDP Id) -> 172.27.11.254
Status TLV support (local/remote) : enabled/not supported
Label/status state machine : established, LruRru
Last local dataplane status rcvd: no fault
Last local SSS circuit status rcvd: no fault
Last local SSS circuit status sent: no fault
Last local LDP TLV status sent: no fault
Last remote LDP TLV status rcvd: not sent
MPLS VC labels: local 1223, remote 1221
Group ID: local 0, remote 0
MTU: local 1500, remote 1500
Remote interface description:
Sequencing: receive disabled, send disabled
VC statistics:
packet totals: receive 0, send 4318
byte totals: receive 0, send 474880
packet drops: receive 0, seq error 0, send 0
=============================================================================
RT_ATOM_1#sho mpls l2transport binding
Destination Address: 172.27.11.254, VC ID: 10
Local Label: 1223
Cbit: 1, VC Type: Ethernet, GroupID: 0
MTU: 1500, Interface Desc: n/a
VCCV: CC Type: CW [1], RA [2]
CV Type: LSPV [2]
Remote Label: 1221
Cbit: 1, VC Type: Ethernet, GroupID: 0
MTU: 1500, Interface Desc: n/a
VCCV: CC Type: CW [1], RA [2]
CV Type: LSPV [2]
===========================================================================
RT_ATOM_1#sho mpls forwarding-table | i l2
1223 No Label l2ckt(10) 0 Fa8 point2point
===========================================================================
RT_ATOM_2#sho mpls l2transport vc 10 detail
Local interface: Fa0/1 up, line protocol up, Ethernet up
Destination address: 172.27.11.252, VC ID: 10, VC status: up
Next hop: 172.27.14.25
Output interface: Fa0/0, imposed label stack {550 1223}
Create time: 00:11:53, last status change time: 00:08:18
Signaling protocol: LDP, peer 172.27.11.252:0 up
MPLS VC labels: local 1221, remote 1223
Group ID: local 0, remote 0
MTU: local 1500, remote 1500
Remote interface description:
Sequencing: receive disabled, send disabled
VC statistics:
packet totals: receive 2446, send 1553
byte totals: receive 224196, send 213523
packet drops: receive 15, seq error 0, send 0
==============================================================
RT_ATOM_1#sho mpls l2transport binding 10
Destination Address: 172.27.11.254, VC ID: 10
Local Label: 1223
Cbit: 1, VC Type: Ethernet, GroupID: 0
MTU: 1500, Interface Desc: n/a
VCCV: CC Type: CW [1], RA [2]
CV Type: LSPV [2]
Remote Label: 1221
Cbit: 1, VC Type: Ethernet, GroupID: 0
MTU: 1500, Interface Desc: n/a
VCCV: CC Type: CW [1], RA [2]
CV Type: LSPV [2]
yourname#
=====================================================
RT_ATOM_2#sho mpls l2transport binding 10
Destination Address: 172.27.11.252, VC ID: 10
Local Label: 1221
Cbit: 1, VC Type: Ethernet, GroupID: 0
MTU: 1500, Interface Desc: n/a
VCCV: CC Type: CW [1], RA [2]
CV Type: LSPV [2]
Remote Label: 1223
Cbit: 1, VC Type: Ethernet, GroupID: 0
MTU: 1500, Interface Desc: n/a
VCCV: CC Type: CW [1], RA [2]
CV Type: LSPV [2]
===========================================================
Looking at output of command sho mpls l2transport vc 10 detail it can be observed that ATOM_2 is sending and receiving packet but that is not the case for ATOM_1
What could be wrong with this scenario?
Your input will be appreciated.
Regards,
«
Last Edit: July 09, 2014, 06:50:32 AM by adecisco
»
Logged
Technology makes life easy but I hope the same technology will not send man back to stone age!
MC
Global Moderator
Cisco Guru
Posts: 400
Reputation: 606
CCIE x3 (RS,Sec,SP)
Certification: CCIE
Re: AToM not passing traffic even with vc up.
«
Reply #1 on:
July 14, 2014, 11:00:55 PM »
Looks like the VC came up so the targeted LDP should be good. Any chance that the LDP is broken from ATOM2 to ATOM1? Have you verify transport label along that path and make sure there is no missing label on any link?
Logged
adecisco
Cisco Newbie
Posts: 96
Reputation: 10
Discovering new solution is sweet!
Certification: N/A
Re: AToM not passing traffic even with vc up.
«
Reply #2 on:
September 10, 2014, 03:37:34 AM »
Hello,
I was latter discovered that the problem was with mikrotic router along the path and some link problem could be an issues as well.
But here is a new issues..after I changed the router I have the following:
ping mpls pseudowire 172.27.11.66 333 reply mode router-alert
Sending 5, 100-byte MPLS Echos to 172.27.11.66,
timeout is 2 seconds, send interval is 0 msec:
Codes: '!' - success, 'Q' - request not sent, '.' - timeout,
'L' - labeled output interface, 'B' - unlabeled output interface,
'D' - DS Map mismatch, 'F' - no FEC mapping, 'f' - FEC mismatch,
'M' - malformed request, 'm' - unsupported tlvs, 'N' - no label entry,
'P' - no rx intf label prot, 'p' - premature termination of LSP,
'R' - transit router, 'I' - unknown upstream index,
'X' - unknown return code, 'x' - return code 0
Type escape sequence to abort.
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 4/4/4 ms
showing pseudowire is perfect.
But on what situation cause internet connection to be extremely slow even though bandwidth is not restricted?
Everything is fine now but internet browsing through the l2vpn is extremely slow.
Any suggested help will be appreciated.
Thanks,
Logged
Technology makes life easy but I hope the same technology will not send man back to stone age!
MC
Global Moderator
Cisco Guru
Posts: 400
Reputation: 606
CCIE x3 (RS,Sec,SP)
Certification: CCIE
Re: AToM not passing traffic even with vc up.
«
Reply #3 on:
September 10, 2014, 10:14:34 PM »
So I assume you tested internet speed at both ends of the tunnel and get performance difference?Could it be MTU issue? Take a packet capture and see if there is any fragmentation.
Logged
adecisco
Cisco Newbie
Posts: 96
Reputation: 10
Discovering new solution is sweet!
Certification: N/A
Re: AToM not passing traffic even with vc up.
«
Reply #4 on:
October 08, 2014, 01:56:10 AM »
It turn out that the VC is working perfectly but the problem was with the internet..I decided to use another internet source at one remote end and voila everything start working as planned..
Thanks,
Logged
Technology makes life easy but I hope the same technology will not send man back to stone age!
MC
Global Moderator
Cisco Guru
Posts: 400
Reputation: 606
CCIE x3 (RS,Sec,SP)
Certification: CCIE
Re: AToM not passing traffic even with vc up.
«
Reply #5 on:
October 08, 2014, 06:40:31 PM »
Good to know.. Thanks for the update.
Logged
Print
Pages: [
1
]
« previous
next »
Lab Minutes Forum
»
Technical Discussion
»
Routing and Switching
»
AToM not passing traffic even with vc up.
Related Topics
Subject / Started by
Replies
Last post
Guarantee OSPF traffic
Started by
ackld
Routing and Switching
1 Replies
6938 Views
February 21, 2014, 10:37:15 PM
by
MC
proxy traffic redirection to CWA
Started by
Antonne
Security
1 Replies
11858 Views
June 01, 2016, 09:45:58 PM
by
MC
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal