mpls l2transport route cause VC down

Answered Question
Feb 16th, 2007

dear all,

i have an issue concerned when i configure AToM to enable router to transport ATM aal5 between two PErouter

topology as below:

ATM ==PErouter1==MPLS-cloud==PErouter2== ATM

before I implement "mpls AToM" I configure it as:

=PErouter1=

interface ATM1/0/0

no shut

interface ATM1/0/0.1

pvc 0/164 l2transport

then i tried loopback testing for pvc (ping atm interface atm1/0/0.1 0 164 end). the test was okay (i got reply)

but when i put command :

int atm 1/0/0.1

pvc 0/164 l2

mpls l2transport route 172.30.248.32 610000

the pvc line between perouter1 and atm is down.

i tried ping atm interface atm1/0/0.1 0 164 end, the result is 'request timeout'

the same case is happened in both perouter.

sh mpls l2 vc

Local intf Local circuit Dest address VC ID Status

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

AT1/0/0.3 ATM AAL5 0/166 172.30.248.32 610000 DOWN

cisco-pe#sh mpls l2 vc detail

Local interface: AT1/0/0.3 up, line protocol up, ATM AAL5 0/166 up

Destination address: 172.30.248.32, VC ID: 610000, VC status: down

Tunnel label: not ready, LFIB entry present

Output interface: unknown, imposed label stack {}

Create time: 00:04:40, last status change time: 00:02:11

Signaling protocol: LDP, peer 172.30.248.32:0 up

MPLS VC labels: local 995, remote 1502

Group ID: local 83, remote 193

MTU: local 4470, remote 4470

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

from logg i found :

Feb 16 02:36:23.049 JAVT: %C6K_MPLS_COMMON-3-L3_CONFIG_NOT_RECOMMENDED: LAN interfaces have MPLS configured.

Do not configure xconnect on interface vlans.

Feb 16 02:36:27.433 JAVT: %IPC-5-WATERMARK: 907 messages pending in rcv for the port Card5/1:Request(2150000.5) seat 2150000

Feb 16 02:36:27.461 JAVT: %LDP-5-NBRCHG: LDP Neighbor 172.30.248.32:0 is UP

Feb 16 02:36:57.498 JAVT: %IPC-5-WATERMARK: 907 messages pending in rcv for the port Card5/1:Request(2150000.5) seat 2150000

Feb 16 02:37:27.562 JAVT: %IPC-5-

please help me,

thx

Rano

I have this problem too.
0 votes
Correct Answer by alexander.muhin about 9 years 7 months ago

hmm.. didn't hear about such

sorry

regards,

Alex

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 3.5 (2 ratings)
Loading.
alexander.muhin Fri, 02/16/2007 - 00:52

Hi Rano,

what hardware do you have (including core facing interfaces)?

Show LFIB of your PE routers. It would be nice if you show configs of both PE routers (interfaces: edge, core; mpls part etc).

regards

Alexander

cripth Sun, 02/18/2007 - 21:13

Hi Alex,

i'm sorry i can't provide you anything about MPLS part, because that beyond my scope. but i can provide info about pe router config in attachment

cisco-PE1 = 6509

cisco-PE2 = 7609

and both are using card 4-subslot SPA Interface Processor-400

is there any problem with configuration or there are something that i missed it.

thx

Rano

Attachment: 
alexander.muhin Mon, 02/19/2007 - 13:53

I think the configuration is ok.

It seems you have a lan card as a core-facing interface.

ATM AAL5 over MPLS Restrictions

The following restrictionapplies to the ATM AAL5 over MPLS feature.

•Both CE-facing and core-facing cards must be WAN cards (enhanced OSMs, FLexWAN and Enhanced FlexWAN modules) and not LAN cards.

http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/core/cis7600/cfgnotes/optical/122sx/mpls.htm#wp1282153

SUP720-PFC3B-based systems and SUP720-PFC3BXL-based systems require that the core-facing cards must be CWAN cards (enhanced OSMs, FlexWAN and Enhanced FlexWAN modules, and Shared Port Adapter [SPA] Interface Processors [SIPs]). This applies to CWAN-based Ethernet over MPLS, ATM AAL5 over MPLS, ATM Cell Relay over MPLS, and Frame Relay over MPLS.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/routers/ps368/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a00803f3770.html#wp1426121

hope this helps,

Alexander

cripth Wed, 02/21/2007 - 19:45

thx a lot for the info lex,

i'm sure it is because of core-facing card too.

but do you have any solution for this issue, like upgrading IOS beside changing core-facing WAN interface, because it's gonna take lot of time to implement it (ordering, shipping, etc).

thx

rano

Actions

This Discussion