PseudoWire is down

[vikas2903]

Hi,

I am trying to configure ATOM between Cisco 7200 routers. But the VC is not coming up. Below is the output:

7206#sh mpls l2transport vc detail

Local interface: Fa2/0.1 up, line protocol up, Eth VLAN 12 up

Destination address: 5.5.5.5, VC ID: 5555, VC status: down

LFIB entry not present

Output interface: unknown, imposed label stack {}

Create time: 01:53:38, last status change time: 00:03:11

Signaling protocol: LDP, peer 5.5.5.5:0 up

MPLS VC labels: local 16, remote 16

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 0

byte totals: receive 0, send 0

packet drops: receive 0, send 0

7206#

--------------------------------------------------

As it can be seen that the LDP peers are up, but the VC state is down. The error message is :

LFIB entry not present

Output interface: unknown, imposed label stack {}

Can anyone tell me how to make this router know the output interface and why the LFIB entries are not created.

Thanks in advance,

Vikas

[kewl_potato]

Vikas,

Just check whether your LDP neighbourship is made with the peer 5.5.5.5. If it is not directly connected just check from which neighbour your are receving the update for the peer.

Thanks

Abey

[forsudhaji]

O/P says LFIB entry not present.Pls check whether u have route for 5.5.5.5 network in your IP Routing table.

This shall create corresp entry in LFIB.

If possible, pls copy the o/p of sh ip ro 5.5.5.5.

Thanx

Sudha.

[vikas2903]

The topology is as following:

--PE1Cisco7200 --------------- PE2Cisco7206--

Loopback 5.5.5.5 Loopback 8.8.8.8

The two cisco are directly connected. Here are some more output from PE2 to narrow down the problem:

7206#sh mpls forwarding-table

Local Outgoing Prefix Bytes tag Outgoing Next Hop

tag tag or VC or Tunnel Id switched interface

16 Untagged l2ckt(5555) 0 none point2point

7206#

7206#sh mpls ldp bi

tib entry: 5.5.5.5/32, rev 20

local binding: tag: imp-null

tib entry: 8.8.8.8/32, rev 13

local binding: tag: imp-null

7206#sh ip route 5.5.5.5

Routing entry for 5.5.5.5/32

Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 (connected)

Routing Descriptor Blocks:

* directly connected, via FastEthernet3/0

Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1

7206#

Please let me know your comments.

Thanks,

Vikas

[vikas2903]

Hi Abey,

Both PEs are directly connected.

Thanks,

Vikas

[adityakaul]

Try,the below mentioned on both of the PE's.

Rgds

Aditya

mpls ldp explicit-null

[vikas2903]

Hi Aditya,

Already tried this option, but VC didn't come up.

Thanks,

Vikas

[kewl_potato]

Vikas,

i suspect the problem is with the LDP neighbourship. Can u paste the output from " show mpls ldp neighbor 5.5.5.5". If neighborship is not made, can u make them neighbor and see, whether the VC is coming up. Normaly LFIB entries are made from LDP routes learned from LDP.

Thanks

Abey

[vikas2903]

Hi Abey,

I put following command on both the routers but VC did not come up.

mpls ldp neighbor targeted ldp

Thanks,

Vikas

[vikas2903]

Hello,

I tried to create a PW session between directly connected Cisco7200 routers. I made both routers to act as PE but the VC state did not come up. Now when I insert one P in between the apply the same steps, the VC came up between PEs.

My Question is, Does Cisco supports PW between directly connected PEs ?? According to draft "draft-ietf-pwe3-control-protocol-16.txt", it should (plz see section 2).

Thanks,

Vikas

[spremkumar]

hi vikas

we did try the same kinda setup quite sometime back on our end without any P router in place between 2 PE routers.

but we did use 6513 and 7609 boxes for the same and we did fall into same kinda trap tht the VC wasnt coming up...but i dont think diff in h/w boxes has something to do with the VC session..

on diagnosing the same we did find tht LFIB entry for remote loopback with which we r trying to create VC wasnt ther and becoz of the same the tunnel was down..

if u still intersted and want to try without any P router in between the PE routers would suggest to post out the whole configs of both thee boxes with which ur trying to have the PW session..

regds