[185862] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: EoMPLS vlan rewrite between brands; possibly new bug in Cisco IOS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jonas Bjork)
Sat Nov 14 20:32:06 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Jonas Bjork <mr.jonas.bjork@me.com>
In-reply-to: <EC322E5D-2A40-4006-A7B2-306C25761D48@ericsson.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2015 02:31:58 +0100
To: Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Dear Mr. Jeff,
Thank you for your reply. Below is the complete output in question (l2 =
is short for l2transport).
You are mentioning platform capabilities and that the default might have =
changed. How do I alter this?
pe#sh mpls l2 vc 42 d
Local interface: Po190.42 up, line protocol up, Eth VLAN 42 up
Destination address: X.X.1.89, VC ID: 42, VC status: down
Last error: Imposition VLAN rewrite capability mismatch with peer
Output interface: none, imposed label stack {}
Preferred path: not configured
Default path: no route
No adjacency
Create time: 00:00:59, last status change time: 00:31:40
Last label FSM state change time: 00:00:18
Last peer autosense occurred at: 00:00:18
Signaling protocol: LDP, peer X.X.1.89:0 up
Targeted Hello: X.X.0.2(LDP Id) -> X.X.1.89, LDP is UP
Graceful restart: not configured and not enabled
Non stop routing: not configured and not enabled
Status TLV support (local/remote) : enabled/not supported
LDP route watch : enabled
Label/status state machine : remote invalid, LruRnd
Last local dataplane status rcvd: No fault
Last BFD dataplane status rcvd: Not sent
Last BFD peer monitor status rcvd: No fault
Last local AC circuit status rcvd: No fault
Last local AC circuit status sent: DOWN PW(rx/tx faults)
Last local PW i/f circ status rcvd: No fault
Last local LDP TLV status sent: No fault
Last remote LDP TLV status rcvd: Not sent
Last remote LDP ADJ status rcvd: No fault
MPLS VC labels: local 242, remote 1199
Group ID: local 0, remote 0
MTU: local 9216, remote 9216
Remote interface description:
Remote VLAN id: 42
Sequencing: receive disabled, send disabled
Control Word: Off (configured: autosense)
SSO Descriptor: X.X.1.89/42, local label: 242
Dataplane:
SSM segment/switch IDs: 0/0 (used), PWID: 142
VC statistics:
transit packet totals: receive 0, send 0
transit byte totals: receive 0, send 0
transit packet drops: receive 0, seq error 0, send 0
pe#
Anyone else: feel free to join in. Maybe we have any L2VC/PW ninjas =
watching.
Best regards,
Jonas Bjork
> On 15 Nov 2015, at 1:26, Jeff Tantsura <jeff.tantsura@ericsson.com> =
wrote:
>=20
> Been forever since i looked at cisco, however sounds like vc type =
mismatch. They used to have it as a platform capability, perhaps SW =
upgrade changed the default.
>=20
> to my memory "show mpls l2 transport" should provide enough details.
>=20
> Hope this helps
>=20
> Regards,
> Jeff
>=20
>> On Nov 14, 2015, at 4:50 AM, Jonas Bjork <mr.jonas.bjork@me.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> Hi, I am using a couple of AToM/EoMPLS tunnels in order to carry =
customer voice and data traffic across our IP/MPLS core, and it is =
currently working just fine. The first side consists of a Cisco 7600 =
router (rsp) and the other one is an HP A5500-HI routing switch with =
full LER/E-LSR capability. At the HP site, the tunnels are facing the =
access ports towards our premium end-customers; and on the Cisco PE I =
terminate the tunnels on one of the 2x10GE portchannel backbone links. =
There is vlan X on the HP side and vlan Y on the Cisco side - vlan =
rewrite is working perfectly - as long as I use IOS 12.
>>=20
>> After upgrading the Cisco router software to IOS 15 the tunnels won't =
come up. sh mpls l2 vc Y d says:
>> ...
>> Last error: Imposition VLAN rewrite capability mismatch with peer
>> ...
>>=20
>> I use almost exactly the same Cisco configuration before and after =
the upgrade (only minor changes and nothing related to this) and I =
havn't touched the HP. Apparently they don't talk the same L2PW =
language. I wonder though, why now? We use service instances on the HP =
switchport as endpoint, we initiate the targetted LDP session in =
addition to the pseudowire handshake from a sub interface MPLS =
crossconnect. There is no MTU mismatch; not here - not anywhere.
>>=20
>> Anyone heard of this issue or experienced it?
>>=20
>> Best regards,
>>=20
>> Jonas Bj=F6rk
>> SNE, Europe/Sweden (hope you guys will help me anyway:)
