MPLS VPN Issue - Can't Ping (MPLS Encapsulation Failed)
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Peter Danes on September 22, 2008, 8:00 am
Please log in for more thread options Hi, I copied the MPLS VPN configuration (with slight modifications) from the following document but can't ping any remote addresses in the VRF. http://www.cisco.com/en/U...ple09186a00800a6c11.shtml The routing tables/path on all of the PE routers are correct and there are no ACL's that would be restricting ICMP traffic. I've also set the MTU/MPLS MTU and it still fails encapsulation. Can anyone think of a reason why MPLS encapsulation is failing? I can a provide a copy of the configuration on each router is required. ****************************************************************** Output of debug IP packet: R5#ping vrf Customer_A 192.168.4.1 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 192.168.4.1, timeout is 2 seconds: *Mar 1 05:58:55.021: IP: tableid=1, s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1 (FastEthernet0/0), routed via FIB *Mar 1 05:58:55.021: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1 (FastEthernet0/0), len 100, sending *Mar 1 05:58:55.021: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1 (FastEthernet0/0), len 100, MPLS encapsulation failed *Mar 1 05:58:55.390: IP: s=5.5.5.5 (local), d=224.0.0.10 (Loopback0), len 60, sending broad/multicast *Mar 1 05:58:55.390: IP: s=5.5.5.5 (Loopback0), d=224.0.0.10, len 60, rcvd 2 *Mar 1 05:58:55.450: IP: s=10.1.1.5 (local), d=224.0.0.10 (FastEthernet0/0), len 60, sending broad/multicast *Mar 1 05:58:55.450: IP: s=10.1.1.5 (FastEthernet0/0), d=224.0.0.10, len 60, rcvd 2. *Mar 1 05:58:56.584: IP: s=10.1.1.1 (FastEthernet0/0), d=224.0.0.10, len 60, rcvd 2 *Mar 1 05:58:57.025: IP: tableid=1, s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1 (FastEthernet0/0), routed via FIB *Mar 1 05:58:57.025: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1 (FastEthernet0/0), len 100, sending *Mar 1 05:58:57.025: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1 (FastEthernet0/0), len 100, MPLS encapsulation failed. *Mar 1 05:58:57.918: IP: s=10.1.1.5 (local), d=255.255.255.255 (FastEthernet0/0), len 48, sending broad/multicast *Mar 1 05:58:58.130: IP: s=10.1.1.1 (FastEthernet0/0), d=255.255.255.255, len 48, rcvd 0 *Mar 1 05:58:59.028: IP: tableid=1, s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1 (FastEthernet0/0), routed via FIB *Mar 1 05:58:59.028: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1 (FastEthernet0/0), len 100, sending *Mar 1 05:58:59.028: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1 (FastEthernet0/0), len 100, MPLS encapsulation failed *Mar 1 05:58:59.753: IP: s=5.5.5.5 (local), d=224.0.0.10 (Loopback0), len 60, sending broad/multicast *Mar 1 05:58:59.753: IP: s=5.5.5.5 (Loopback0), d=224.0.0.10, len 60, rcvd 2. *Mar 1 05:59:00.342: IP: s=10.1.1.5 (local), d=224.0.0.10 (FastEthernet0/0), len 60, sending broad/multicast *Mar 1 05:59:00.342: IP: s=10.1.1.5 (FastEthernet0/0), d=224.0.0.10, len 60, rcvd 2 *Mar 1 05:59:01.027: IP: tableid=1, s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1 (FastEthernet0/0), routed via FIB *Mar 1 05:59:01.027: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1 (FastEthernet0/0), len 100, sending *Mar 1 05:59:01.027: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1 (FastEthernet0/0), len 100, MPLS encapsulation failed *Mar 1 05:59:01.512: IP: s=10.1.1.1 (FastEthernet0/0), d=224.0.0.10, len 60, rcvd 2 *Mar 1 05:59:01.941: IP: s=10.1.1.5 (local), d=255.255.255.255 (FastEthernet0/0), len 48, sending broad/multicast. *Mar 1 05:59:02.894: IP: s=10.1.1.1 (FastEthernet0/0), d=255.255.255.255, len 48, rcvd 0 *Mar 1 05:59:03.031: IP: tableid=1, s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1 (FastEthernet0/0), routed via FIB *Mar 1 05:59:03.031: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1 (FastEthernet0/0), len 100, sending *Mar 1 05:59:03.031: IP: s=192.168.5.1 (local), d=192.168.4.1 (FastEthernet0/0), len 100, MPLS encapsulation failed. Success rate is 0 percent (0/5) ****************************************************************** | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Matthew Melbourne on September 22, 2008, 8:38 am
Please log in for more thread options > Hi,
> I copied the MPLS VPN configuration (with slight modifications) from the
> following document but can't ping any remote addresses in the VRF. > http://www.cisco.com/en/U...ple09186a00800a6c11.shtml
> The routing tables/path on all of the PE routers are correct and there
> are no ACL's that would be restricting ICMP traffic. > I've also set the MTU/MPLS MTU and it still fails encapsulation.
> Can anyone think of a reason why MPLS encapsulation is failing? I can a
> provide a copy of the configuration on each router is required. The configs would be helpful. You do have a global 'ip cef' and 'mpls ip' configured under all interfaces connecting P/PE routers? Cheers, Matt -- Matthew Melbourne | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Merv on September 22, 2008, 8:45 am
Please log in for more thread options
Does R5 have a label for the destination being pinged ??? Without a label, MPLS cannot complete packet encap | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Peter Danes on September 22, 2008, 10:10 am
Please log in for more thread options
Merv wrote: > Does R5 have a label for the destination being pinged ???
> > Without a label, MPLS cannot complete packet encap Hmm, I don't see any labels for the vrf "Customer_A": R5#show mpls ldp bind vrf Customer_A TIB not enabled But I do have labels for my global routing table: R5#show mpls ldp bind tib entry: 1.1.1.1/32, rev 16 local binding: tag: 23 remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: imp-null tib entry: 2.2.2.2/32, rev 18 local binding: tag: 24 remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 20 tib entry: 3.3.3.3/32, rev 20 local binding: tag: 25 remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 21 tib entry: 4.4.4.4/32, rev 14 local binding: tag: 22 remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 19 tib entry: 5.5.5.5/32, rev 2 local binding: tag: imp-null remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 22 tib entry: 6.6.6.6/32, rev 10 local binding: tag: 20 remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 17 tib entry: 10.1.1.0/24, rev 4 local binding: tag: imp-null remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: imp-null tib entry: 10.2.2.0/24, rev 8 local binding: tag: 19 remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 16 tib entry: 10.3.3.0/24, rev 12 local binding: tag: 21 remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 18 tib entry: 10.11.11.0/24, rev 21 remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: imp-null tib entry: 172.12.123.0/24, rev 6 local binding: tag: 18 remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: imp-null Is the above expected or should I be looking into the "TIB not enabled" message? I don't think I've even come across that term in my recent studies. | ||||||||||||||||
|
Posted by Peter Danes on September 22, 2008, 10:13 am
Please log in for more thread options
Peter Danes wrote: > Merv wrote:
>> Does R5 have a label for the destination being pinged ???
>> >> Without a label, MPLS cannot complete packet encap >
> Hmm, I don't see any labels for the vrf "Customer_A": > > R5#show mpls ldp bind vrf Customer_A > TIB not enabled > > But I do have labels for my global routing table: > > R5#show mpls ldp bind > tib entry: 1.1.1.1/32, rev 16 > local binding: tag: 23 > remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: imp-null > tib entry: 2.2.2.2/32, rev 18 > local binding: tag: 24 > remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 20 > tib entry: 3.3.3.3/32, rev 20 > local binding: tag: 25 > remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 21 > tib entry: 4.4.4.4/32, rev 14 > local binding: tag: 22 > remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 19 > tib entry: 5.5.5.5/32, rev 2 > local binding: tag: imp-null > remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 22 > tib entry: 6.6.6.6/32, rev 10 > local binding: tag: 20 > remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 17 > tib entry: 10.1.1.0/24, rev 4 > local binding: tag: imp-null > remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: imp-null > tib entry: 10.2.2.0/24, rev 8 > local binding: tag: 19 > remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 16 > tib entry: 10.3.3.0/24, rev 12 > local binding: tag: 21 > remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: 18 > tib entry: 10.11.11.0/24, rev 21 > remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: imp-null > tib entry: 172.12.123.0/24, rev 6 > local binding: tag: 18 > remote binding: tsr: 1.1.1.1:0, tag: imp-null > > Is the above expected or should I be looking into the "TIB not enabled" > message? I don't think I've even come across that term in my recent > studies. > Further to the above: R5#show mpls forwarding-table Local Outgoing Prefix Bytes tag Outgoing Next Hop tag tag or VC or Tunnel Id switched interface 16 Aggregate 192.168.5.0/24[V] 0 17 Aggregate 192.168.5.0/24[V] 0 18 Pop tag 172.12.123.0/24 0 Fa0/0 10.1.1.1 19 16 10.2.2.0/24 0 Fa0/0 10.1.1.1 20 17 6.6.6.6/32 0 Fa0/0 10.1.1.1 21 18 10.3.3.0/24 0 Fa0/0 10.1.1.1 22 19 4.4.4.4/32 0 Fa0/0 10.1.1.1 23 Pop tag 1.1.1.1/32 0 Fa0/0 10.1.1.1 24 20 2.2.2.2/32 0 Fa0/0 10.1.1.1 25 21 3.3.3.3/32 0 Fa0/0 10.1.1.1 R5#show mpls forwarding-table vrf Customer_A Local Outgoing Prefix Bytes tag Outgoing Next Hop tag tag or VC or Tunnel Id switched interface 16 Aggregate 192.168.5.0/24[V] 0 It looks like the LFIB is missing a few entries. | ||||||||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| MPLS VPN Issue - Can't Ping (MPLS Encapsulation Failed) | September 22, 2008, 8:00 am |
| MPLS: DiffServ & TE paths are really required to deploy commercial VoIP over a MPLS network. | August 16, 2005, 6:34 am |
| Encapsulation failed on 1721 | May 30, 2006, 8:27 am |
| Bridge Group question... "Encapsulation Failed" on a BVI... | July 7, 2006, 7:20 pm |
| MPLS or not ? | February 8, 2006, 8:14 pm |
| MPLS | May 1, 2007, 3:35 pm |
| ospf over mpls | August 29, 2005, 7:15 am |
| MPLS on the GSR12000 | September 16, 2005, 11:27 am |
| MPLS Guidance | November 10, 2005, 2:46 pm |
| MPLS definition | May 23, 2006, 12:37 am |
| VOIP over MPLS only | June 15, 2006, 3:29 pm |
| MPLS - DR testing | August 2, 2006, 6:08 am |
| Sprint - MPLS & VPN | August 8, 2006, 6:28 pm |
| MPLS newbie | April 13, 2007, 10:43 am |
| Preemption on MPLS | May 11, 2007, 9:48 am |