Quantcast
Channel: IEOC - INE's Online Community
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 10744

AToM not passing traffic even with vc up.

$
0
0

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.

Thank you,


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 10744

Trending Articles