Cisco Support Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. If you'd prefer to explore, try our test area to get started. And see here for current known issues.

New Member

ipv6 traps categories

hi all,

i wondering which kind of traps can i expect from a network which is full dual-stack, and where

ospfv3 and mp-bgp are working over ipv6 peering relationships.

are those traps part of the IP-MIB and IP-FORWARD-MIB only?

i ask this because i did a test with three routers configured for bgp peering with ipv4 an ipv6.

i enabled snmp bgp related traps in the hub router, when the ipv4 bgp session went down traps are coming out

for the bgp session established in ipV4.

rather, the session in ipv6 does not generate any kind of trap, and i suspect that this will be also true for ospfV3 compared to ospfV2 over ipv4.

so basically i have to determine the scope where ipv6-related traps are living.

any help will be appreciated.


Everyone's tags (3)
Cisco Employee

Re: ipv6 traps categories

On what version of IOS did you test?  The CISCO-BGP4-MIB does support IPv6, and does have traps which should advertise IPv6 peer states.  If you're not seeing that, you may be hitting CSCso90107.  The OSPF MIBs still use IPv4 only addresses.

New Member

Re: ipv6 traps categories

hi joseph,

thanks for your answer.

i did the tests on 12.4(15)T10, but the production scenario will be based on 12.2S(R|E...) and on ios XR.

do i have to dive into configuration guides and check about ipv6 network management sections?

i've found that 12.2SR is the same as 12.4T about supported mibs.


New Member

Re: ipv6 traps categories

hello again,

there's no way out for making 12.4(15)T10 or 12.2(33)SRD2a sending out cbgpFsmStateChange traps under ipv6 address families.

it works fine under ipv4 and vpnv4 address-families, but ipv6 bgp peering sessions can not be managed via snmp traps.

address-family mutlicast not tested!