[GTER] l2circuit/xconnect entre MX-104 e ME3600X
Caio
caiot5 at gmail.com
Mon Oct 3 12:03:05 -03 2016
Grande Westphal, acho que você pode estar certo, fez sentido pra mim.
O duro é que vou ter que continuar o lab em outro ME3600X, este que estava
rodando aparentemente 'bugou' o crypto depois de um downgrade pra versão 12
e está inacessível.
Temos outro em estoque, essa semana ainda testo isso, talvez amanhã.
Obrigado!
Em 01/10/2016 13:09, "Renato Westphal" <renato at opensourcerouting.org>
escreveu:
Tchê, tá com cara de que o Cisco não tá recebendo um label mapping
(implicit-null) pra loopback do Juniper, apesar de a configuração do
Juniper parecer ok.
Se puder passa o output dos comandos abaixo (no Cisco):
#show mpls ip binding <IP-LO-JUNOS> 32
#show ip cef <IP-LO-JUNOS> detail
#show mpls ldp neighbor <IP-LO-JUNOS> // tem que ter duas adjacências
(normal e extended)
#show mpls l2transport vc detail
2016-09-29 19:35 GMT-03:00 Caio <caiot5 at gmail.com>:
> @Guilherme
> Diretamente conectados
>
> @Lista
> As loopbacks se pingam em L3, sobem a adjacência normal, mas não se pingam
> tentando pingar diretamente a FEC (ping mpls).
>
> 2016-09-29 17:00 GMT-03:00 Lista <lista.gter at gmail.com>:
>
>> Se suas loopbacks não pinga entre si, verifica se seu protocolo de base
de
>> distribuição das rotas estão devidamente conectados e propagando as rotas
>> com os neighboors, sendo assim, uma vez vc pingando eles via camada 3
>> normal, vc conseguirá estabelecer suas adjacencias via mpls.
>>
>>
>> 2016-09-29 16:34 GMT-03:00 Caio <caiot5 at gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Também não vai:
>> >
>> > #ping mpls
>> > Target IPv4, pseudowire or traffic-eng [ipv4]: ipv4
>> > Target IPv4 address: YY.YY.YY.YY
>> > Target mask: 255.255.255.255
>> > Repeat count [5]:
>> > Datagram size [72]:
>> > Timeout in seconds [2]:
>> > Send interval in msec [0]:
>> > Extended commands? [no]:
>> > Sweep range of sizes? [no]:
>> > Sending 5, 72-byte MPLS Echos to YY.YY.YY.YY/32,
>> > 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,
>> > 'l' - Label switched with FEC change, 'd' - see DDMAP for return
code,
>> > 'X' - unknown return code, 'x' - return code 0
>> >
>> > Type escape sequence to abort.
>> > QQQQQ
>> > Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
>> > Total Time Elapsed 0 ms
>> >
>> >
>> > Realmente tem alguma coisa errada, só não consigo entender *O QUE*.
>> > A adjacência sobe normal, o VC sobe do lado do Juniper, chequei a
config
>> > com a do C2951 que também é uma adjacência de ambos e está IGUAL,
somente
>> > com os ips diferentes e no C2951 sobe. Realmente não tenho nenhuma
pista
>> do
>> > que pode ser.
>> >
>> > 2016-09-29 14:45 GMT-03:00 Guilherme de Freitas Figueiredo <
>> > guilhermefreitasfigueiredo at gmail.com>:
>> >
>> > > Caio, eu ja cheguei a fechar com juniper sem maiores problemas
também,
>> o
>> > > ping mpls ipv4 partindo da loopback do cisco para a loopback do
juniper
>> > > também nao funciona? se nem isso funcionar tem algo de errado no
mpls.
>> > >
>> > > []s!
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Guilherme de Freitas Figueiredo
>> > >
>> > > 2016-09-29 12:07 GMT-03:00 Caio <caiot5 at gmail.com>:
>> > >
>> > > > Outra dúvida Guilherme, os cenários que você tem com o ME3600X
estão
>> > > > fechando o VC direto com Juniper MX ou apenas entre ME3600X ? (esse
>> > > último
>> > > > eu sei que funciona sem segredos)
>> > > >
>> > > > 2016-09-29 11:07 GMT-03:00 Caio <caiot5 at gmail.com>:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Guilherme,
>> > > > > Nem o ping pinga, nem o traceroute completa:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > # run traceroute mpls ldp XX.XX.XX.XX
>> > > > > Probe options: ttl 64, retries 3, wait 10, paths 16, exp 7,
>> fanout
>> > 16
>> > > > >
>> > > > > ttl Label Protocol Address Previous Hop
Probe
>> > > > Status
>> > > > > 1 WW.WW.WW.WW (null) No
reply
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2 (null) (null) No
>> > reply
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 3 (null) (null) No
>> > reply
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 4 (null) (null) No
>> > reply
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 5 (null) (null) No
>> > reply
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 6 (null) (null) No
>> > reply
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 7 (null) (null) No
>> > reply
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 8 (null) (null) No
>> > reply
>> > > > >
>> > > > > WW.WW.WW.WW é o IP diretamente conectado na interface
>> (não-loopback).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Você se importa de me dizer qual IOS você está usando nos teus
>> > ME3600X
>> > > e
>> > > > > se tiver um cenário parecido, compartilhar a configuração, ou
>> alguma
>> > > > parte
>> > > > > relevante dela que esteja diferente?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > 2016-09-29 10:44 GMT-03:00 Guilherme de Freitas Figueiredo <
>> > > > > guilhermefreitasfigueiredo at gmail.com>:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> tenho bastante mpls com 3600 aqui sem nenhum problema, o ping
>> mpls
>> > > ou o
>> > > > >> traceroute mpls para o destino do juniper tem resposta? muito
>> > estranho
>> > > > >> essa
>> > > > >> forwarding-table estar sem o destino do prefixo desejado.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> []s!
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> --
>> > > > >> Guilherme de Freitas Figueiredo
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Caio <caiot5 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> > Guilherme,
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Service-instance sem bridge domain com xconnect na
>> > > service-instance, a
>> > > > >> CEF
>> > > > >> > está ok, mas a forwarding-table está vazia, o que eu acredito
>> ser
>> > > > >> devido a
>> > > > >> > falha no MPLS Dataplane veja:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Local Outgoing Prefix Bytes Label Outgoing
>> > Next
>> > > > Hop
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Label Label or Tunnel Id Switched interface
>> > > > >> > 17 No Label l2ckt() 0 drop
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Eduardo, segue configuração do serviço, está bem simples (obs:
>> > tenho
>> > > > >> outros
>> > > > >> > cenários rodando com exatamente a mesma configuração
funcionando
>> > ok,
>> > > > >> porém,
>> > > > >> > em outros equipamentos, C2951, etc):
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Juniper side:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > set interfaces ge-0/0/0 mtu 1600
>> > > > >> > set interfaces ge-0/0/0 encapsulation ethernet-ccc
>> > > > >> > set interfaces ge-0/0/0 unit 0
>> > > > >> > set protocols l2circuit neighbor XX.XX.XX.XX interface
>> ge-0/0/0.0
>> > > > >> > virtual-circuit-id 2
>> > > > >> > set protocols l2circuit neighbor XX.XX.XX.XX interface
>> ge-0/0/0.0
>> > > > >> > control-word
>> > > > >> > set protocols l2circuit neighbor XX.XX.XX.XX interface
>> ge-0/0/0.0
>> > > mtu
>> > > > >> 1600
>> > > > >> > set protocols l2circuit neighbor XX.XX.XX.XX interface
>> ge-0/0/0.0
>> > > > >> > pseudowire-status-tlv
>> > > > >> > set protocols ldp interface xe-2/0/1.1 transport-address
>> router-id
>> > > > >> > set protocols mpls interface xe-2/0/1.1
>> > > > >> > set protocols ldp egress-policy connected
>> > > > >> > set protocols ldp deaggregate
>> > > > >> > set protocols ldp interface lo0.0 transport-address interface
>> > > > >> > set interfaces lo0 unit 0 family inet address YY.YY.YY.YY/32
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > Cisco side:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > pseudowire-class eompls
>> > > > >> > encapsulation mpls
>> > > > >> > control-word
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > interface GigabitEthernet0/1
>> > > > >> > no switchport
>> > > > >> > mtu 1600
>> > > > >> > no ip address
>> > > > >> > xconnect YY.YY.YY.YY 2 encapsulation mpls pw-class eompls
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > mpls ldp router-id Loopback0 force
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > interface Loopback0
>> > > > >> > ip address XX.XX.XX.XX 255.255.255.255
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > 2016-09-28 23:42 GMT-03:00 Eduardo Schoedler <
>> listas at esds.com.br
>> > >:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > Se mandasse a configuração, ficaria muito mais simples de
>> > > > entender...
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > Em quarta-feira, 28 de setembro de 2016, Guilherme de
Freitas
>> > > > >> Figueiredo
>> > > > >> > <
>> > > > >> > > guilhermefreitasfigueiredo at gmail.com> escreveu:
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > > como ta a configuração do seu transporte na g0/1 ? service
>> > > > instance
>> > > > >> com
>> > > > >> > > > bridge-domain ? switchport com vlan ? service-instance sem
>> > > bridge
>> > > > >> > domain
>> > > > >> > > e
>> > > > >> > > > xconnect na service instance? a forwarding-table também
está
>> > > > >> correta?
>> > > > >> > bem
>> > > > >> > > > como a cef? como fica o traceroute com pacotes mpls para o
>> > > > destino?
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > []s!
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > --
>> > > > >> > > > Guilherme de Freitas Figueiredo
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Caio <caiot5 at gmail.com
>> > > > >> > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > >> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >> > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Rubens,
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Tentei tudo que foi sugerido no post, ainda na mesma.
>> > > > >> > > > > Extraí o debug do VC tentando subir, quem quiser dar uma
>> > > olhada:
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: Circuit
>> > attributes,
>> > > > >> > Receive
>> > > > >> > > > > update:
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: . Status: UP
>> > (0x1)
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: . Alarm: 0x0
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: Process attrs
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: Receive
status
>> > > update
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: . Receive AC
>> > > > STATUS(UP)
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: .. AC status
UP
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: .... S:Evt
>> local
>> > > up,
>> > > > >> > > > > LrdRruD->LruRruD
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: .... S:Act
send
>> > > > >> > notify(DOWN)
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ..... Send
>> > > > notify(DOWN)
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: .....
>> Dataplane
>> > :
>> > > > >> > > > > DOWN(pw-tx-fault)
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: .....
Overall
>> > :
>> > > > >> > > > > DOWN(pw-tx-fault)
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ..... Send
LDP
>> > for
>> > > > >> status
>> > > > >> > > > change
>> > > > >> > > > > from DOWN AC(rx/tx faults), (pw-tx-fault)
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ..... NMS: VC
>> > oper
>> > > > >> state:
>> > > > >> > > > DOWN
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ..... NMS:
>> > err
>> > > > >> codes:
>> > > > >> > > > > pw-rx-err
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ..... NMS:
>> > > > >> > : +
>> > > > >> > > > > dp-err
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ..... SYSLOG:
>> VC
>> > is
>> > > > >> DOWN,
>> > > > >> > PW
>> > > > >> > > > Err
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ... Local
ready
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: .... Local
>> > service
>> > > is
>> > > > >> > ready;
>> > > > >> > > > > send a label
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: .... Alloc
>> local
>> > > > >> binding
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ..... No need
>> to
>> > > > update
>> > > > >> > the
>> > > > >> > > > > local binding
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: .... Generate
>> > local
>> > > > >> event
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: .... Ready,
>> label
>> > > 17
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: .... Evt
local
>> > > ready,
>> > > > >> in
>> > > > >> > > > > activating
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ..... Take no
>> > > action
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: .. Check if
can
>> > > > >> activate
>> > > > >> > > > > dataplane
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ... Not
>> > activating
>> > > > >> > > dataplane:
>> > > > >> > > > > not establishing
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:19:08.264: AToM: 1631 cumulative msgs handled.
>> > rc=0
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: Evt dataplane
>> > > > >> reactivate,
>> > > > >> > in
>> > > > >> > > > > activating
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: . Activate
>> > > dataplane
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: . Need to
setup
>> > the
>> > > > >> > > dataplane
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: . Setup
>> > dataplane,
>> > > > >> PWID 1
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: .. Provision
>> SSM
>> > > with
>> > > > >> PWID
>> > > > >> > > 1,
>> > > > >> > > > VC
>> > > > >> > > > > ID 2, Block ID 0
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: .. Set imp
>> flags:
>> > > cw
>> > > > ra
>> > > > >> > vcw
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ..
>> :
>> > > nsf
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: .. Set
segment
>> > > count
>> > > > >> to 1
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: .. Provision
>> SSM
>> > > with
>> > > > >> > > > 5489/5527
>> > > > >> > > > > (sw/seg)
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: Receive SSM
>> > > dataplane
>> > > > >> > > > > unavailable notification
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: Evt dataplane
>> > down,
>> > > > in
>> > > > >> > > > > activating
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: . Dataplane
>> > > > unavailable
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: . Set last
>> error:
>> > > > MPLS
>> > > > >> > > > dataplane
>> > > > >> > > > > reported a fault to the nexthop
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: .. S:Evt
>> > dataplane
>> > > > >> fault
>> > > > >> > in
>> > > > >> > > > > LruRruD
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: .. S:Act send
>> > > > >> SSS(DOWN),
>> > > > >> > > > > notify(DOWN)
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ...
Dataplane
>> :
>> > > > >> > > > > DOWN(pw-tx-fault)
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ... Overall
>> :
>> > > > >> > > > > DOWN(pw-rx-fault)
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ...
[filtered
>> > AC]
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ... Send
>> > > notify(DOWN)
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ...
Dataplane
>> :
>> > > > >> > > > > DOWN(pw-tx-fault)
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ... Overall
>> :
>> > > > >> > > > > DOWN(pw-tx-fault)
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: ...
[filtered
>> > LDP]
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: . Notify
>> > dataplane
>> > > > down
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: Deactivating
>> data
>> > > > plane
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: Notify
>> dataplane
>> > > down
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: Unprovision
and
>> > > > >> deallocate
>> > > > >> > > SSM
>> > > > >> > > > > segment
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: Added vc to
60
>> > sec
>> > > > >> retry
>> > > > >> > > queue
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM[XX.XX.XX.XX, 2]: Event
provision
>> > > retry
>> > > > >> > > already
>> > > > >> > > > in
>> > > > >> > > > > retry queue
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Sep 28 17:20:06.464: AToM: 1632 cumulative msgs handled.
>> > rc=0
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Procurando no Google achei alguns reports de problemas
>> com o
>> > > > >> ME3600X
>> > > > >> > > > usando
>> > > > >> > > > > signaling em BGP, porém estou usando LDP para signaling
>> > então
>> > > > não
>> > > > >> > > consigo
>> > > > >> > > > > ver uma relação entre os problemas.
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Bom, deixo aí aberto pra quem puder ajudar, QUALQUER
>> ajuda é
>> > > bem
>> > > > >> > vinda.
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Abs,
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > Caio
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > 2016-09-28 12:50 GMT-03:00 Caio <caiot5 at gmail.com
>> > > > >> <javascript:;>>:
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > Rubens,
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > Obrigado pela dica, vi algumas coisas que posso tentar
>> > nesse
>> > > > >> Post.
>> > > > >> > > > > > Vou testar todas as possibilidades hoje e passo um
>> report
>> > > pra
>> > > > >> > lista.
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > Abs,
>> > > > >> > > > > > Caio
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > Em 28/09/2016 11:43, "Lista" <lista.gter at gmail.com
>> > > > >> <javascript:;>>
>> > > > >> > > > escreveu:
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > se funcionar nos reporte, seria interessante o
feedback
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > Em 28 de setembro de 2016 07:40, Rubens Kuhl <
>> > > > rubensk at gmail.com
>> > > > >> > > > <javascript:;>>
>> > > > >> > > > > escreveu:
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > http://blog.ipspace.net/2011/
>> 11/junos-versus-cisco-ios-
>> > > > >> > > > > mpls-and-ldp.html
>> > > > >> > > > > > > pode dar uma luz...
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > Rubens
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > 2016-09-27 15:05 GMT-03:00 Caio <caiot5 at gmail.com
>> > > > >> > <javascript:;>>:
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Senhores,
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Estou com um problema estranho ao tentar subir um
>> > > > >> > > > l2circuit/xconnect
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > interop. entre um MX-104 e um ME3600X.
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Um detalhe interessante é que tanto no ME3600X
>> quanto
>> > no
>> > > > >> MX-104
>> > > > >> > > há
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > l2circuits/xconnects fechados com outros
>> dispositivos
>> > > > >> (outros
>> > > > >> > > > > Junipers
>> > > > >> > > > > > e
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > outros Ciscos como 2951 etc).
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > No lado do MX fica tudo up:
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Neighbor: XX.XX.XX.XX
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Interface Type St Time
last
>> > up
>> > > > >> > > #
>> > > > >> > > > Up
>> > > > >> > > > > > > trans
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > ge-0/0/0.0(vc 2) rmt Up Sep 27
>> > > 14:54:56
>> > > > >> 2016
>> > > > >> > > > > > > 1
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Remote PE: YY.YY.YY.YY, Negotiated
>> control-word:
>> > > Yes
>> > > > >> > (Null)
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Incoming label: 300192, Outgoing label: 18
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Negotiated PW status TLV: No
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Local interface: ge-0/0/0.0, Status: Up,
>> > > > >> Encapsulation:
>> > > > >> > > > > ETHERNET
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Porém do lado do Cisco, não sobe nem na bala:
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Local interface: Gi0/1 up, line protocol up,
>> Ethernet
>> > up
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Destination address: XX.XX.XX.XX, VC ID: 2, VC
>> > status:
>> > > > >> down
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Last error: *MPLS dataplane reported a fault
to
>> > the
>> > > > >> > nexthop*
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > As adjacências estão ok dos dois lados (apesar do
>> > Uptime
>> > > > não
>> > > > >> > > > bater):
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > #sh mpls ldp neighbor
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Peer LDP Ident: XX.XX.XX.XX:0; Local LDP Ident
>> > > > >> > YY.YY.YY.YY:0
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > TCP connection: XX.XX.XX.XX.646 -
>> 177.21.44.122.23511
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > State: Oper; Msgs sent/rcvd: 62103/54188;
Downstream
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > * Up time: 6d07h*
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > show ldp neighbor YY.YY.YY.YY detail
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Address Interface Label space
ID
>> > > > >> > Hold
>> > > > >> > > > > time
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > YY.YY.YY.YY lo0.0 YY.YY.YY.YY:0
>> > > > >> 41
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Transport address: YY.YY.YY.YY, Configuration
>> > > sequence:
>> > > > 0
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > * Up for 1w1d 23:35:12*
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Procurei bastante no Google e não achei nada,
apenas
>> > > > pessoas
>> > > > >> > com
>> > > > >> > > o
>> > > > >> > > > > > mesmo
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > problema e que aparentemente não conseguiram
>> resolver
>> > ou
>> > > > não
>> > > > >> > > > postaram
>> > > > >> > > > > > os
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > resultados.
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Alguém já passou por isso ou sabe o que pode ser?
>> > > > >> > > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Desde já agradeço.
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > Abraços.
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > --
>> > > > >> > > > > > > > gter list https://eng.registro.br/
>> > > > mailman/listinfo/gter
>> > > > >> > > > > > > --
>> > > > >> > > > > > > gter list https://eng.registro.br/
>> > > mailman/listinfo/gter
>> > > > >> > > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > > --
>> > > > >> > > > > > gter list https://eng.registro.br/
>> > mailman/listinfo/gter
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > > --
>> > > > >> > > > > gter list https://eng.registro.br/
>> mailman/listinfo/gter
>> > > > >> > > > >
>> > > > >> > > > --
>> > > > >> > > > gter list https://eng.registro.br/mailman/listinfo/gter
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > --
>> > > > >> > > Eduardo Schoedler
>> > > > >> > > --
>> > > > >> > > gter list https://eng.registro.br/mailman/listinfo/gter
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > --
>> > > > >> > gter list https://eng.registro.br/mailman/listinfo/gter
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> --
>> > > > >> gter list https://eng.registro.br/mailman/listinfo/gter
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > --
>> > > > gter list https://eng.registro.br/mailman/listinfo/gter
>> > > >
>> > > --
>> > > gter list https://eng.registro.br/mailman/listinfo/gter
>> > >
>> > --
>> > gter list https://eng.registro.br/mailman/listinfo/gter
>> >
>> --
>> gter list https://eng.registro.br/mailman/listinfo/gter
>>
> --
> gter list https://eng.registro.br/mailman/listinfo/gter
--
Renato Westphal
--
gter list https://eng.registro.br/mailman/listinfo/gter
More information about the gter
mailing list