Just reading through RFC6575 - ARP Mediation for IP Interworking for L2VPNs, and noticed that the Cisco implementation doesn't seem to be as mentioned in the RFC.
The CE (CE1) router with Ethernet L2 Attachment Circuit when performs ARP for remote CE IPv4 address, the local PE router responds with its own MAC Address. And that's where IOS stops following the RFC.
As per the RFC, the local PE router when learns about the local CE IP address, advertises that to remote PE router in IP Address List TLV in LDP Label Mapping message. I dont see any Label Mapping messages.
Also, the PE router learns the IPv4 address of CE (CE2) router connected via a PPP L2 Attachment Circuit when the CE router sends a CONFREQ message to PE with its IP address. This PE router then advertises that to remote PE router in IP Address List TLV in LDP Label Mapping message. I dont see that either.
Question is - do the PE routers just forward everything to remote PE after removing the L2 header?
Hi Amit, could you point which section of that RFC is unfamiliar with Cisco procedures? The section 3.0 of the same RFC states: 3. IP Layer 2 Interworking Circuit The IP Layer 2 Interworking Circuit refers to interconnection of the Attachment Circuit with the IP Layer 2 Transport pseudowire that carries IP datagrams as the payload. The ingress PE removes the data link header of its local Attachment Circuit and transmits the payload (an IP packet) over the pseudowire with or without the optional control word. If the IP packet arrives at the ingress PE with multiple data link headers (for example, in the case of bridged Ethernet PDU on an ATM Attachment Circuit), all data link headers MUST be removed from the IP packet before transmission over the pseudowire (PW). The egress PE encapsulates the IP packet with the data link header used on its local Attachment Circuit. The encapsulation for the IP Layer 2 Transport pseudowire is described in [RFC4447]. The "IP Layer 2 Interworking Circuit" pseudowire is also referred to as "IP pseudowire" in this document. In the case of an IPv6 L2 Interworking Circuit, the egress PE MAY modify the contents of Neighbor Discovery or Inverse Neighbor Discovery packets before encapsulating the IP packet with the data link header. This seems perfectly aligned with what Cisco Systems implements. This RFC was written by Cisco through Eric Rosen, so that would be really cool if Cisco did not implement this yet! :) Hope to read you soon Alessio
With XR 4.2.0 the ASR9000 is releasing a new line of hardware models. This amongst others is the RSP440, the next generation RSP with faster switch fabric along with Typhoon based Linecards, the next generation network processor.
The Cisco EPN system incorporates a network architecture designed to consolidate multiples services on a single Multiprotocol Label Switching (MPLS) transport network. This network is designed primarily based on...
Internet security is important with the increasing attacks that are happening every day. Many internet and browsing security solutions exist, but some are not very easy to use or maybe the question is how can I enable them?