Turn on suggestions
Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
- Cisco Community
- :
- About steven.crutchley
05-15-2019
steven.crutchle
Member since
10-05-2010
Beginner
I am a Network Engineer living in London, originally from NZ.
Created by
steven.crutchle
in XR OS and Platforms
04-24-2019
05:47 AM
04-24-2019
05:47 AM
Hi Sam, See above for a quick diagram I drew on my tablet. I have confirmed this issue is to do with the software version I'm running. In the above topology L3VPN and MPLS are not involved. It is straight IPv4. "ibgp policy out enforce-modifications" is not configured anywhere. The XR router reflector (R1), when running 6.1.1 demo software, will reset the next hop to itself on an iBGP reflected route. This shouldn't happen. Even with next-hop-self in the af-group, iBGP reflected routes should not have the next hop changed (unless"ibgp policy out enforce-modifications" is on, which it isn't). If I run 6.5.3 software on the XR, this issue does not occur and the next-hop for prefix 4.4.4.4/32 isn't reset. This leads me to believe 6.1.1 is subject to bug https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvd16351 or similar. Thanks for the help.
... View more
Created by
steven.crutchle
in XR OS and Platforms
04-19-2019
10:17 AM
04-19-2019
10:17 AM
Hi Adam, Thanks for the response and sorry for the delay in replying. Yes I believe you're correct. I have removed next-hop-self and applied an outbound route policy to iBGP peers and forced next-hop-self for any prefixes I know to have been received from an eBGP peer. I think it should only change the next-hop for eBGP routes, but the image I'm using (6.1.1) appears to be suffering from some kind of bug (possibly this one: https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCvd16351 ). Thanks again.
... View more
Created by
steven.crutchle
in XR OS and Platforms
04-07-2019
11:21 AM
04-07-2019
11:21 AM
Hi Michalis, Thanks for the response. I know that have a route reflector set itself to the next hop is not best practice. My situation is for a lab environment and I am trying to understand Cisco's IOS-XR default behaviour. in my lab the route reflector, despite not being best practice, has an eBGP peer and several iBGP clients (which essentially make this both a Route Reflector and an MSE/BR which, I agree, is not best practice). Under the address-family group towards the iBGP route reflector clients the next-hop-self command has been used. My understanding was that the router would do the following: When reflecting routes to an iBGP neighbor who is a client (e.g. route-reflector-client is configured), and I have next-hop-self configured, then I will only set the next hop to myself if the route I'm reflecting is learning via an iBGP peer (most likely another client). If I learn a route from an eBGP peer then I will reflect the route and set the next hop to myself. This is what I believe should be happen but it is not what I observe in my lab (running GNS3 XRv routers with version 6.1.1). In my lab, the iBGP reflected routes are being given the reflector as the next hop. I'm trying to determine if I have misunderstood the default behaviour or if I might have something configured that is causing this default behaviour not too apply. Does that clarify my query?
... View more
Created by
steven.crutchle
in XR OS and Platforms
04-04-2019
11:30 AM
04-04-2019
11:30 AM
My understanding is that using next-hop-self on a Cisco IOS route-reflectors follows this rule: Using the 'neighbor next-hop-self' command on the route reflector will modify next hop attributes only for routes that are learned from eBGP peers and not the intended routes that are being reflected from the route reflector clients. This makes sense. You don't want the reflector reseting the next hop for internal routes received from clients. However is this the same behaviour for IOS-XR? I have a router, XR1, that has an eBGP peer but is also an RR for several iBGP peers. A peering to an iBGP neighbor looks like this: router bgp 1
bgp cluster-id 255.255.255.2
address-family ipv4 unicast
network 11.11.11.11/32
!
af-group IPV4_IBGP_RR_CLIENTS address-family ipv4 unicast
route-reflector-client next-hop-self
!
session-group IBGP_PEERS
remote-as 1
update-source Loopback0
!
neighbor 2.2.2.2
use session-group IBGP_PEERS
address-family ipv4 unicast
use af-group IPV4_IBGP_RR_CLIENTS
! I'm finding that if I don't remove next-hop-self, XR1 is setting itself as the next hop when reflecting routes from one iBGP client to another iBGP client. This seems to be the opposite of what Cisco IOS does. Can anyone advise if this is normal behaviour? I'm happy to provide additional output if needed.
... View more
Labels:
Created by
steven.crutchle
in Other Service Provider Subjects
08-22-2018
03:02 PM
08-22-2018
03:02 PM
I'm reading through my notes to prepare of my next exam, and I'm having trouble understanding the rules of CB Policing as they are layed out in the book -specifically when it comes to the question of what tokens are removed if the Exceed action is to be perform for a Single-Rate Three-Color (Dual buckets) scenario.
I understand the rules to be as follows:
A packet with x bytes in it arrives.
If x <= The number of tokens in the Bc bucket - then x bytes are removed and the conform action is performed.
The number of tokens in the Bc bucket < x <=The number of tokens in the Be bucket - then x bytes are removed from the Be bucket and the exceed action is performed.
If x > The number of tokens in the Be bucket - then no tokens are removed and the violate action is performed.
Now that seems pretty simple at first glance, but what happens if a 51 byte packet arrives and the size of the Bc bucket is 50, and it is full, and the size of the Be bucket is 100 and it is a quarter full (25 tokens).
It doesn't conform. 51> 50. But it doesn't exceed either. Since 51>25. It looks like this would violate.
But there are 75 tokens available to be used... So the policer can send up to 75 bytes.... right?
Should the exceed rule not then be the following:
The number of tokens in the Bc bucket < x <= (The number of tokens in the Bc bucket + The number of tokens in the Be bucket) - then x bytes are removed from the Be and Bc buckets (emptying the Bc bucket first) and the exceed action is performed.
Is that right or have I misunderstood?
I seems to me that if the rules as I initially stated them are true, the the Be bucket would have to be larger that the Bc bucket otherwise it would always fail its check if the Bc bucket did. I suppose what I am asking, is whether or not the Be bucket tokens are considered together, with the Bc bucket tokens, or independently.
I hope that makes sense. Thanks in advance for any help :)
... View more
Labels:
Created by
steven.crutchle
in Routing
07-26-2018
09:53 AM
07-26-2018
09:53 AM
See attached for output.
From the trace to 192.168.80.1 correctly follows the upper path (not through the TE tunnel)
But the trace to 192.168.70.1 doesn't even make it to the first P router according to a traceroute. I think the problem is on PE1.
CE1#traceroute 192.168.80.1 source lo1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 192.168.80.1
1 172.30.1.9 16 msec 20 msec 8 msec
2 10.10.110.1 [AS 500] [MPLS: Labels 50105/52019 Exp 0] 112 msec 152 msec 76 msec
3 10.10.15.5 [AS 500] [MPLS: Labels 50504/52019 Exp 0] 120 msec 84 msec 124 msec
4 10.10.56.6 [AS 500] [MPLS: Labels 50600/52019 Exp 0] 88 msec 104 msec 112 msec
5 172.30.2.9 [AS 500] [MPLS: Label 52019 Exp 0] 132 msec 124 msec 132 msec
6 172.30.2.10 [AS 500] 112 msec 180 msec 88 msec
CE1#traceroute 192.168.70.1 source lo1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 192.168.70.1
1 172.30.1.9 12 msec 12 msec 24 msec
2 * * *
3 * * *
4 * * *
5 * * *
... View more
Created by
steven.crutchle
in Routing
07-26-2018
09:51 AM
07-26-2018
09:51 AM
So from PE1 traceroutes look as follows:
PE1#traceroute vrf CUST_1 192.168.70.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 192.168.70.1
1 * * *
2 * * *
3 * * *
4
PE1#traceroute vrf CUST_1 192.168.80.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 192.168.80.1
1 10.10.110.1 [MPLS: Labels 50105/52019 Exp 0] 72 msec 112 msec 84 msec
2 10.10.15.5 [MPLS: Labels 50504/52019 Exp 0] 80 msec 72 msec 72 msec
3 10.10.56.6 [MPLS: Labels 50600/52019 Exp 0] 76 msec 88 msec 76 msec
4 172.30.2.9 [MPLS: Label 52019 Exp 0] 68 msec 68 msec 84 msec
5 172.30.2.10 28 msec 80 msec 96 msec
PE1#
A wireshark capture of the link between PE1 and the next P router no packets being sent. So I'm not sure the ICMP is even leaving PE1.
... View more
Created by
steven.crutchle
in Routing
07-25-2018
11:32 AM
07-25-2018
11:32 AM
Hi John,
Thanks for that. This seems to have worked. At least in part. I can see the next hop is being set correctly now. But I still cannot ping across the tunnel. When I do a packet capture I cannot see the packet even leaving PE1(the ingress PE for the tunnel).
Any advice? Here is what CEF and BGP see:
PE1#sh ip cef vrf CUST_1 192.168.70.0 detail
192.168.70.0/24, version 16, epoch 0
0 packets, 0 bytes
tag information set
local tag: VPN-route-head
fast tag rewrite with
Recursive rewrite via 200.200.200.201/32, tags imposed {52019}
via 200.200.200.201, 0 dependencies, recursive
next hop 200.200.200.201, Tunnel1 via 200.200.200.201/32
valid adjacency
tag rewrite with
Recursive rewrite via 200.200.200.201/32, tags imposed {52019}
PE1#sh ip cef vrf CUST_1 192.168.70.0 detail
192.168.70.0/24, version 16, epoch 0
0 packets, 0 bytes
tag information set
local tag: VPN-route-head
fast tag rewrite with
Recursive rewrite via 200.200.200.201/32, tags imposed {52019}
via 200.200.200.201, 0 dependencies, recursive
next hop 200.200.200.201, Tunnel1 via 200.200.200.201/32
valid adjacency
tag rewrite with
Recursive rewrite via 200.200.200.201/32, tags imposed {52019}
PE1#
... View more
Created by
steven.crutchle
in Routing
07-25-2018
10:58 AM
07-25-2018
10:58 AM
See attached for requested output.
Ignore routes for 44.x.x.x 33.x.x.x or 99.x.x.x. I've added to the lab but these are unrelated to the MPLS L3VPN setup.
... View more
Created by
steven.crutchle
in Routing
07-18-2018
02:33 PM
07-18-2018
02:33 PM
The content is as follows:
ip extcommunity-list 1 permit rt 500:1
However even if I remove all match statements from the route-map (meaning match all) the next hop is still not being set correctly.
PE1#conf t
Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z.
PE1(config)#route-map TE_IMPORT permit 10
PE1(config-route-map)#no match ip address prefix-list TE_IMPORT
PE1(config-route-map)#no match extcommunity 1
PE1(config-route-map)#^Z
PE1#
*Mar 1 00:10:45.167: %SYS-5-CONFIG_I: Configured from console by console
PE1#
PE1#clear ip bgp *
PE1#
*Mar 1 00:11:04.399: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 77.77.77.77 Down User reset
*Mar 1 00:11:04.399: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 172.30.1.10 vpn vrf CUST_1 Down User reset
*Mar 1 00:11:04.923: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 77.77.77.77 Up
PE1#
*Mar 1 00:11:05.603: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 172.30.1.10 vpn vrf CUST_1 Up
PE1#sh ip ro vrf CUST_1
Routing Table: CUST_1
Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2
i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2
ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user static route
o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route
Gateway of last resort is not set
B 192.168.60.0/24 [20/0] via 172.30.1.10, 00:00:10
172.30.0.0/30 is subnetted, 2 subnets
B 172.30.2.8 [200/0] via 200.200.200.200, 00:00:03
C 172.30.1.8 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/1
B 192.168.80.0/24 [200/0] via 200.200.200.200, 00:00:03
B 192.168.70.0/24 [200/0] via 200.200.200.200, 00:00:03
... View more
Created by
steven.crutchle
in Routing
07-18-2018
02:23 PM
07-18-2018
02:23 PM
See attached for configs of PE1 and PE2
... View more
Created by
steven.crutchle
in Routing
07-18-2018
12:03 PM
07-18-2018
12:03 PM
Yes of course. Schoolboy error. Sorry about that.
However I've correct it and cleared BGP and it still hasn't been reset...
PE1#
PE1#
PE1#
PE1#sh run | sec TE
import map TE_IMPORT
ip prefix-list TE_IMPORT seq 5 permit 192.168.70.0/24
route-map TE_IMPORT permit 10
match ip address prefix-list TE_IMPORT
match extcommunity 1
set ip next-hop 200.200.200.201
route-map TE_IMPORT permit 20
match extcommunity 1
PE1#
PE1#sh ip cef vrf CUST_1 192.168.70.0
192.168.70.0/24, version 33, epoch 0, cached adjacency 10.10.110.1
0 packets, 0 bytes
tag information set
local tag: VPN-route-head
fast tag rewrite with Fa0/0, 10.10.110.1, tags imposed: {50105 52019}
via 200.200.200.200, 0 dependencies, recursive
next hop 10.10.110.1, FastEthernet0/0 via 200.200.200.200/32
valid cached adjacency
tag rewrite with Fa0/0, 10.10.110.1, tags imposed: {50105 52019}
PE1#
PE1#sh ip ro vrf CUST_1
Routing Table: CUST_1
Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2
i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2
ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user static route
o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route
Gateway of last resort is not set
B 192.168.60.0/24 [20/0] via 172.30.1.10, 00:05:03
172.30.0.0/30 is subnetted, 2 subnets
B 172.30.2.8 [200/0] via 200.200.200.200, 00:04:56
C 172.30.1.8 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/1
B 192.168.80.0/24 [200/0] via 200.200.200.200, 00:04:56
B 192.168.70.0/24 [200/0] via 200.200.200.200, 00:04:56
PE1#
... View more
Created by
steven.crutchle
in Routing
07-18-2018
11:47 AM
07-18-2018
11:47 AM
Thanks for the response.
So I have configured everything as you've suggested but I don't thin the next hop is being set correctly.
There is my config
PE1#sh run | sec vrf CUST_1
ip vrf CUST_1
description Customer_1_VRF
rd 500:1
vpn id 500:1
import map TE_IMPORT
route-target export 500:1
route-target import 500:1
<snip>
PE1#
PE1#
PE1#sh run | sec TE_IMPORT
<snip>
ip prefix-list TE_IMPORT seq 5 permit 192.168.70.0/24
route-map TE_IMPORT permit 10
match ip address TE_IMPORT
match extcommunity 1
set ip next-hop 200.200.200.201
route-map TE_IMPORT permit 20
match extcommunity 1
PE1#
PE1#show ip route 200.200.200.200
Routing entry for 200.200.200.200/32
Known via "isis", distance 115, metric 40, type level-2
Redistributing via isis
Last update from 10.10.110.1 on FastEthernet0/0, 00:34:05 ago
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* 10.10.110.1, from 200.200.200.200, via FastEthernet0/0
Route metric is 40, traffic share count is 1
PE1#show ip route 200.200.200.201
Routing entry for 200.200.200.201/32
Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0 (connected)
Redistributing via bgp 500
Advertised by bgp 500
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* directly connected, via Tunnel1
Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
PE1#sh run int tu1
Building configuration...
Current configuration : 200 bytes
!
interface Tunnel1
ip unnumbered Loopback0
tunnel destination 200.200.200.200
tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng
tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 explicit name LOWER-PATH
no routing dynamic
end
PE1#
PE2#sh run int lo1
Building configuration...
Current configuration : 97 bytes
!
interface Loopback1
description TE Interface
ip address 200.200.200.201 255.255.255.255
end
PE2#sh run | sec router isis
<snip>
router isis LAB
net 49.0500.0200.0200.0200.00
is-type level-2-only
metric-style wide
mpls traffic-eng router-id Loopback0
mpls traffic-eng level-2
passive-interface Loopback0
passive-interface Loopback1
PE2#
After clearing BGP and LDP I get the following output. Note that the next-hop to 192.168.70.0/24 hasn't changed.
PE1#sh bgp vpnv4 unicast vrf CUST_1 192.168.70.0
BGP routing table entry for 500:1:192.168.70.0/24, version 10
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table CUST_1)
Advertised to update-groups:
1
220
200.200.200.200 (metric 40) from 77.77.77.77 (77.77.77.77)
Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best
Extended Community: RT:500:1
Originator: 200.200.200.200, Cluster list: 77.77.77.77
mpls labels in/out nolabel/52019
PE1#sh ip cef vrf CUST_1 192.168.70.0
192.168.70.0/24, version 29, epoch 0, cached adjacency 10.10.110.1
0 packets, 0 bytes
tag information set
local tag: VPN-route-head
fast tag rewrite with Fa0/0, 10.10.110.1, tags imposed: {50105 52019}
via 200.200.200.200, 0 dependencies, recursive
next hop 10.10.110.1, FastEthernet0/0 via 200.200.200.200/32
valid cached adjacency
tag rewrite with Fa0/0, 10.10.110.1, tags imposed: {50105 52019}
PE1#sh ip ro vrf CUST_1
Routing Table: CUST_1
Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2
i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2
ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user static route
o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route
Gateway of last resort is not set
B 192.168.60.0/24 [20/0] via 172.30.1.10, 00:09:07
172.30.0.0/30 is subnetted, 2 subnets
B 172.30.2.8 [200/0] via 200.200.200.200, 00:08:53
C 172.30.1.8 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/1
B 192.168.80.0/24 [200/0] via 200.200.200.200, 00:08:53
B 192.168.70.0/24 [200/0] via 200.200.200.200, 00:08:53
PE1#
If I do a traceroute from CE1 traffic to both 192.168.70.0/24 and 192.168.80.0/2 4 do not enter the tunnel and take the upper path.
CE1#trace 192.168.70.1 source lo1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 192.168.70.1
1 172.30.1.9 16 msec 24 msec 20 msec
2 10.10.110.1 [AS 500] [MPLS: Labels 50105/52019 Exp 0] 124 msec 92 msec 124 msec
3 10.10.15.5 [AS 500] [MPLS: Labels 50504/52019 Exp 0] 96 msec 92 msec 120 msec
4 10.10.56.6 [AS 500] [MPLS: Labels 50600/52019 Exp 0] 80 msec 108 msec 56 msec
5 172.30.2.9 [AS 500] [MPLS: Label 52019 Exp 0] 92 msec 88 msec 68 msec
6 172.30.2.10 [AS 500] 112 msec 112 msec 108 msec
CE1#trace 192.168.80.1 source lo1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 192.168.80.1
1 172.30.1.9 8 msec 12 msec 24 msec
2 10.10.110.1 [AS 500] [MPLS: Labels 50105/52018 Exp 0] 112 msec 192 msec 124 msec
3 10.10.15.5 [AS 500] [MPLS: Labels 50504/52018 Exp 0] 60 msec 128 msec 64 msec
4 10.10.56.6 [AS 500] [MPLS: Labels 50600/52018 Exp 0] 124 msec 124 msec 108 msec
5 172.30.2.9 [AS 500] [MPLS: Label 52018 Exp 0] 104 msec 96 msec 84 msec
6 172.30.2.10 [AS 500] 116 msec 68 msec 120 msec
CE1#
Should 200.200.200.201 be in the CUST_1 vrf?
... View more
Created by
steven.crutchle
in Routing
07-11-2018
09:43 AM
07-11-2018
09:43 AM
Hi John,
Here is the IS-IS config, interface config and output of 'sh mpls traffic-eng tunnels tunnel 1'
(added 'mpls ip' to tunnel interface as you suggested. No change)
PE1#sh run int tu1 Building configuration... Current configuration : 200 bytes ! interface Tunnel1 ip unnumbered Loopback0 mpls ip tunnel destination 200.200.200.200 tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1 explicit name LOWER-PATH no routing dynamic end PE1#
PE1#sh mpls traffic-eng tunnels tunnel 1
Name: PE1_t1 (Tunnel1) Destination: 200.200.200.200
Status:
Admin: up Oper: up Path: valid Signalling: connected
path option 1, type explicit LOWER-PATH (Basis for Setup, path weight 40)
Config Parameters:
Bandwidth: 0 kbps (Global) Priority: 7 7 Affinity: 0x0/0xFFFF
Metric Type: TE (default)
AutoRoute: disabled LockDown: disabled Loadshare: 0 bw-based
auto-bw: disabled
InLabel : -
OutLabel : FastEthernet1/0, 50200
RSVP Signalling Info:
Src 100.100.100.100, Dst 200.200.200.200, Tun_Id 1, Tun_Instance 19
RSVP Path Info:
My Address: 10.10.210.10
Explicit Route: 10.10.210.2 10.10.23.2 10.10.23.3 10.10.34.3
10.10.34.4 10.10.204.4 10.10.204.20 200.200.200.200
Record Route: NONE
Tspec: ave rate=0 kbits, burst=1000 bytes, peak rate=0 kbits
RSVP Resv Info:
Record Route: NONE
Fspec: ave rate=0 kbits, burst=1000 bytes, peak rate=0 kbits
Shortest Unconstrained Path Info:
Path Weight: 40 (TE)
Explicit Route: 10.10.110.10 10.10.110.1 10.10.15.1 10.10.15.5
10.10.56.5 10.10.56.6 10.10.206.6 10.10.206.20
200.200.200.200
History:
Tunnel:
Time since created: 1 hours, 33 minutes
Time since path change: 1 hours, 33 minutes
Current LSP:
Uptime: 1 hours, 33 minutes
PE1#
PE1#sh run interface fa0/0
Building configuration...
Current configuration : 207 bytes
!
interface FastEthernet0/0
description link to P1
ip address 10.10.110.10 255.255.255.0
ip router isis LAB
speed 100
full-duplex
mpls ip
mpls traffic-eng tunnels <<<<<< THIS IS ON ALL P AND PE CORE LINKS
isis circuit-type level-2-only
end
PE1#
PE1#sh run | sec router isis
ip router isis LAB
ip router isis LAB
router isis LAB
net 49.0500.0100.0100.0100.00
is-type level-2-only
metric-style wide
mpls traffic-eng router-id Loopback0
mpls traffic-eng level-2
passive-interface Loopback0
PE1#
Here is how PE1 sees VRF CUST_1
PE1#sh bgp vpnv4 unicast vrf CUST_1 192.168.80.0
BGP routing table entry for 500:1:192.168.80.0/24, version 10
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table CUST_1)
Advertised to update-groups:
1
220
200.200.200.200 (metric 40) from 77.77.77.77 (77.77.77.77)
Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best
Extended Community: RT:500:1
Originator: 200.200.200.200, Cluster list: 77.77.77.77
mpls labels in/out nolabel/52019
PE1#sh bgp vpnv4 unicast vrf CUST_1 192.168.70.0
BGP routing table entry for 500:1:192.168.70.0/24, version 9
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table CUST_1)
Advertised to update-groups:
1 2
Local
0.0.0.0 from 0.0.0.0 (100.100.100.100)
Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 100, weight 32768, valid, sourced, best
Extended Community: RT:500:1
mpls labels in/out 51019/nolabel
PE1#sh ip route vrf CUST_1
Routing Table: CUST_1
Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2
i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2
ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user static route
o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route
Gateway of last resort is not set
B 192.168.60.0/24 [20/0] via 172.30.1.10, 01:33:57
172.30.0.0/30 is subnetted, 2 subnets
B 172.30.2.8 [200/0] via 200.200.200.200, 01:33:42
C 172.30.1.8 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/1
B 192.168.80.0/24 [200/0] via 200.200.200.200, 01:33:42
S 192.168.70.0/24 is directly connected, Tunnel1
PE1#
... View more
Created by
steven.crutchle
in Routing
07-11-2018
09:37 AM
07-11-2018
09:37 AM
RSVP is in use . I can see it in the debug output.
PE1#debug ip rsvp dump-messages
RSVP dump-messages debugging is on
PE1#
*Mar 1 01:30:30.375: RSVP: version:1 flags:0000 type:Path cksum:1995 ttl:255 reserved:0 length:232
*Mar 1 01:30:30.379: SESSION type 7 length 16:
*Mar 1 01:30:30.379: Destination 200.200.200.200, TunnelId 1, Source 100.100.100.100, Protocol 0, Flags 0000
*Mar 1 01:30:30.379: HOP type 1 length 12:
*Mar 1 01:30:30.379: Neighbor 10.10.210.10, LIH 0x01000403
*Mar 1 01:30:30.383: TIME_VALUES type 1 length 8 :
*Mar 1 01:30:30.383: Refresh period is 30000 msecs
*Mar 1 01:30:30.383: EXPLICIT_ROUTE type 1 length 68:
*Mar 1 01:30:30.383: (#1) Strict IPv4 Prefix, 8 bytes, 10.10.210.2/32
*Mar 1 01:30:30.383: (#2) Strict IPv4 Prefix, 8 bytes, 10.10.23.2/32
*Mar 1 01:30:30.387: (#3) Strict IPv4 Prefix, 8 bytes, 10.10.23.3/32
*Mar 1 01:30:30.387: (#4) Strict IPv4 Prefix, 8 bytes, 10.10.34.3/32
*Mar 1 01:30:30.387: (#5) Strict IPv4 Prefix, 8 bytes, 10.10.34.4/32
*Mar 1 01:30:30.387: (#6) Strict IPv4 Prefix, 8 bytes, 10.10.204.4/32
*Mar 1 01:30:30.387: (#7) Strict IPv4 Prefix, 8 bytes, 10.10.204.20/32
*Mar 1 01:30:30.391: (#8) Strict IPv4 Prefix, 8 bytes, 200.200.200.200/32
*Mar 1 01:30:30.391: LABEL_REQUEST type 1 length 8 :
*Mar 1 01:30:30.391: Layer 3 protocol ID: 2048
*Mar 1 01:30:30.391: SESSION_ATTRIBUTE type 7 length 16:
*Mar 1 01:30:30.391: Session name: PE1_t1
*Mar 1 01:30:30.391: Setup priority: 7, reservation priority: 7
*Mar 1 01:30:30.391: Status: May-Reroute
*Mar 1 01:30:30.391: SENDER_TEMPLATE type 7 length 12:
*Mar 1 01:30:30.391: Source 100.100.100.100, tunnel_id 19
*Mar 1 01:30:30.391: SENDER_TSPEC type 2 length 36:
*Mar 1 01:30:30.391: version=0, length in words=7
*Mar 1 01:30:30.391: Token bucket fragment (service_id=1, length=6 words
*Mar 1 01:30:30.391: parameter id=127, flags=0, parameter length=5
*Mar 1 01:30:30.391: average rate=0 bytes/sec, burst depth=1000 bytes
*Mar 1 01:30:30.391: peak rate =0 bytes/sec
*Mar 1 01:30:30.391: min unit=0 bytes, max pkt size=2147483647 bytes
*Mar 1 01:30:30.391: ADSPEC type 2 length 48:
*Mar 1 01:30:30.395: version=0 length in words=10
*Mar 1 01:30:30.395: General Parameters break bit=0 service length=8
*Mar 1 01:30:30.395: IS Hops:1
*Mar 1 01:30:30.395: Minimum Path Bandwidth (bytes/sec):12500000
*Mar 1 01:30:30.395: Path Latency (microseconds):0
*Mar 1 01:30:30.395: Path MTU:1500
*Mar 1 01:30:30.395: Controlled Load Service break bit=0 service length=0
*Mar 1 01:30:30.395:
PE1#
... View more
Created by
steven.crutchley
in XR OS and Platforms
04-24-2019 05:47 AM
04-24-2019 05:47 AM
Hi Sam, See above for a quick diagram I drew on my tablet. I have
confirmed this issue is to do with...
Created by
steven.crutchley
in XR OS and Platforms
04-19-2019 10:17 AM
04-19-2019 10:17 AM
Hi Adam, Thanks for the response and sorry for the delay in replying.
Yes I believe you're correct. ...
Created by
steven.crutchley
in XR OS and Platforms
04-07-2019 11:21 AM
04-07-2019 11:21 AM
Hi Michalis, Thanks for the response. I know that have a route reflector
set itself to the next hop ...
Created by
steven.crutchley
in XR OS and Platforms
04-04-2019 11:30 AM
04-04-2019 11:30 AM
My understanding is that using next-hop-self on a Cisco IOS
route-reflectors follows this rule: Usin...
Created by
steven.crutchley
in Other Service Provider Subjects
08-22-2018 03:02 PM
08-22-2018 03:02 PM
I'm reading through my notes to prepare of my next exam, and I'm having
trouble understanding the ru...
Created by
steven.crutchley
in Routing
07-26-2018 09:53 AM
07-26-2018 09:53 AM
See attached for output. From the trace to 192.168.80.1 correctly
follows the upper path (not throug...
Created by
steven.crutchley
in Routing
07-26-2018 09:51 AM
07-26-2018 09:51 AM
So from PE1 traceroutes look as follows: PE1#traceroute vrf CUST_1
192.168.70.1 Type escape sequence...
Created by
steven.crutchley
in Routing
07-25-2018 11:32 AM
07-25-2018 11:32 AM
Hi John, Thanks for that. This seems to have worked. At least in part. I
can see the next hop is bei...
Created by
steven.crutchley
in Routing
07-25-2018 10:58 AM
07-25-2018 10:58 AM
See attached for requested output. Ignore routes for 44.x.x.x 33.x.x.x
or 99.x.x.x. I've added to th...
Created by
steven.crutchley
in Routing
07-18-2018 02:33 PM
07-18-2018 02:33 PM
The content is as follows: ip extcommunity-list 1 permit rt 500:1
However even if I remove all match...
Created by
steven.crutchley
in Routing
07-18-2018 02:23 PM
07-18-2018 02:23 PM
See attached for configs of PE1 and PE2
Created by
steven.crutchley
in Routing
07-18-2018 12:03 PM
07-18-2018 12:03 PM
Yes of course. Schoolboy error. Sorry about that. However I've correct
it and cleared BGP and it sti...
Created by
steven.crutchley
in Routing
07-18-2018 11:47 AM
07-18-2018 11:47 AM
Thanks for the response. So I have configured everything as you've
suggested but I don't thin the ne...
Created by
steven.crutchley
in Routing
07-11-2018 09:43 AM
07-11-2018 09:43 AM
Hi John, Here is the IS-IS config, interface config and output of 'sh
mpls traffic-eng tunnels tunne...
Created by
steven.crutchley
in Routing
07-11-2018 09:37 AM
07-11-2018 09:37 AM
RSVP is in use . I can see it in the debug output. PE1#debug ip rsvp
dump-messages RSVP dump-message...
Public Statistics
| Date Registered | 10-05-2010 01:57 PM |
| Date Last Visited | 05-15-2019 12:03 AM |
| Total Messages Posted | 169 |
| Total Helpful Votes Received | 10 |
Helpful Votes Given To
| User | Helpful Count |
|---|---|
| 5 | |
| 10 | |
| 3 | |
| 7 | |
| 5 |
.jpg "Hall of Fame Cisco Employee"){kind=icon}
