[GTER] l2circuit/xconnect entre MX-104 e ME3600X
Eduardo Schoedler
listas at esds.com.br
Thu Sep 29 17:46:03 -03 2016
Qual IGP você está rodando?
Não vi na sua configuração.
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
--
Eduardo Schoedler
More information about the gter
mailing list