Solved: mpls l2transport route cause VC down

cripth · ‎02-16-2007

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

alexander.muhin · ‎02-22-2007

hmm.. didn't hear about such

sorry

regards,

Alex

View solution in original post

alexander.muhin · ‎02-16-2007

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 · ‎02-18-2007

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

alexander.muhin · ‎02-19-2007

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 · ‎02-21-2007

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

alexander.muhin · ‎02-22-2007

hmm.. didn't hear about such

sorry

regards,

Alex

cripth · ‎02-22-2007

it's okay.

thx a lot , lex.

Rano