Mailing List Archive

We have had problems with MPLS VC's on ASR's in the past, if the MTU on both sides don't match.
Though the behavior is erratic - sometimes the VC comes up and won't pass traffic, sometimes it doesn't come up at all.

We've also never tried an xconnect on an ASR physical interface. Though I don't have any reason to suspect it wouldn't work, try an untagged service instance?

Do all three VC segments show up/up on the 920?
(sh xconnect int Ten0/0/25)

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jerry Bacon
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2021 10:45 AM
To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Subject: [c-nsp] ASR9K to ASR920 MPLS issue

I have added an ASR920 to my network and cannot get an MPLS VC to work
between it and my ASR9K. The VC comes up on both sides, but no traffic
passes through the circuit. Both the ASR9K and the ASR920 have MPLS VCs
working with other devices.

ASR9K:

Cisco IOS XR Software, Version 6.6.2[Default]

interface TenGigE0/0/1/0.95 l2transport
 encapsulation dot1q 95
 mtu 9114

l2vpn
 xconnect group mpls1
  p2p test1
   interface TenGigE0/0/1/0.95
   neighbor ipv4 10.100.66.1 pw-id 95

ASR920:

Cisco IOS XE Software, Version 03.18.05.SP.156-2.SP5-ext

interface TenGigabitEthernet0/0/25
 mtu 9100
 no ip address
 cdp enable
 service instance 95 ethernet
  encapsulation dot1q 95

l2vpn xconnect context test1
 member TenGigabitEthernet0/0/25 service-instance 95
 member 10.100.25.11 95 encapsulation mpls

Local interface: Te0/0/25 up, line protocol up, Eth VLAN 95 up
  Interworking type is Ethernet
  Destination address: 10.100.25.11, VC ID: 95, VC status: up

  VC statistics:
    transit packet totals: receive 43471, send 0

I have tried both with and without a rewrite on each side, with no
difference.

Ideas, thoughts, suggestions are welcome.

Thanks.

--

Jerry Bacon
Senior Network Engineer
StarTouch, Inc.
http://www.startouch.com
360-543-5679 ext. 111
Microwave - Fiber Optics - Internet Services

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

The VC is UP/UP/UP on both sides, and the MTU does match (it doesn't
come up if they don't). The only odd thing that I see, is on the ASR920
the interworking type is "Ethernet" and on the ASR9K it's "none" (and it
doesn't support Ethernet). On the ASR920:

Local interface: Te0/0/25 up, line protocol up, Eth VLAN 95 up
  Interworking type is Ethernet
  Destination address: 10.100.25.11, VC ID: 95, VC status: up

    MPLS VC labels: local 1631, remote 256476
    Group ID: local 31, remote 67109312
    MTU: local 9100, remote 9100

VPWS name: test1, State: UP
  Te0/0/25                       Te0/0/25:95(Eth VLAN) 0     UP  UP
  pw100038                       10.100.25.11:95(MPLS) 0     UP  UP

--

Jerry Bacon
Senior Network Engineer
StarTouch, Inc.
http://www.startouch.com
360-543-5679 ext. 111
Microwave - Fiber Optics - Internet Services

On 1/5/2021 11:03 AM, Emille Blanc wrote:
> We have had problems with MPLS VC's on ASR's in the past, if the MTU on both sides don't match.
> Though the behavior is erratic - sometimes the VC comes up and won't pass traffic, sometimes it doesn't come up at all.
>
> We've also never tried an xconnect on an ASR physical interface. Though I don't have any reason to suspect it wouldn't work, try an untagged service instance?
>
> Do all three VC segments show up/up on the 920?
> (sh xconnect int Ten0/0/25)
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

I have multiple set up between a single ASR910 and various other ASR920's.
My config seems to work each time I turn up a new customer:

ASR920:
!
! Cisco IOS XE Software, Version 16.06.05a
!
l2 vfi xxxxxxx_Customer_VPLS manual
vpn id 3938
bridge-domain 3938
mtu 9000
neighbor xx.xx.xx.xx encapsulation mpls
!
! xx.xx.xx.xx = loopback of ASR9010
!
!
interface GigabitEthernet0/0/5
description VPLS to Data Center
mtu 9000
no ip address
no ip redirects
no ip proxy-arp
load-interval 30
carrier-delay msec 0
media-type auto-select
negotiation auto
service instance 3938 ethernet
description VLAN 3938 - xxxxx_Customer (VPLS)
encapsulation untagged
service-policy input eox_550_mb_in_Police
service-policy output eox_550_mb_out
bridge-domain 3938
!
!

ASR9010:
!
! Cisco IOS XR Software, Version 6.4.2
!
l2vpn
bridge group xxxxxxx_Customer_VPLS
bridge-domain xxxxxxx_Customer-VLAN-3938
mtu 9000
interface Bundle-Ether6.3938
!
neighbor yy.yy.yy.yy pw-id 3938
!
! yy.yy.yy.yy = loopback of ASR920
!
interface Bundle-Ether6.3938 l2transport
description COLO - xxxxxxx_Customer (VPLS)
encapsulation dot1q 3938
rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric
!



On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 12:05 PM Emille Blanc <emille@abccommunications.com>
wrote:

> We have had problems with MPLS VC's on ASR's in the past, if the MTU on
> both sides don't match.
> Though the behavior is erratic - sometimes the VC comes up and won't pass
> traffic, sometimes it doesn't come up at all.
>
> We've also never tried an xconnect on an ASR physical interface. Though I
> don't have any reason to suspect it wouldn't work, try an untagged service
> instance?
>
> Do all three VC segments show up/up on the 920?
> (sh xconnect int Ten0/0/25)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces@puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
> Jerry Bacon
> Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2021 10:45 AM
> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: [c-nsp] ASR9K to ASR920 MPLS issue
>
> I have added an ASR920 to my network and cannot get an MPLS VC to work
> between it and my ASR9K. The VC comes up on both sides, but no traffic
> passes through the circuit. Both the ASR9K and the ASR920 have MPLS VCs
> working with other devices.
>
> ASR9K:
>
> Cisco IOS XR Software, Version 6.6.2[Default]
>
> interface TenGigE0/0/1/0.95 l2transport
> encapsulation dot1q 95
> mtu 9114
>
> l2vpn
> xconnect group mpls1
> p2p test1
> interface TenGigE0/0/1/0.95
> neighbor ipv4 10.100.66.1 pw-id 95
>
> ASR920:
>
> Cisco IOS XE Software, Version 03.18.05.SP.156-2.SP5-ext
>
> interface TenGigabitEthernet0/0/25
> mtu 9100
> no ip address
> cdp enable
> service instance 95 ethernet
> encapsulation dot1q 95
>
> l2vpn xconnect context test1
> member TenGigabitEthernet0/0/25 service-instance 95
> member 10.100.25.11 95 encapsulation mpls
>
> Local interface: Te0/0/25 up, line protocol up, Eth VLAN 95 up
> Interworking type is Ethernet
> Destination address: 10.100.25.11, VC ID: 95, VC status: up
>
> VC statistics:
> transit packet totals: receive 43471, send 0
>
> I have tried both with and without a rewrite on each side, with no
> difference.
>
> Ideas, thoughts, suggestions are welcome.
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
>
> Jerry Bacon
> Senior Network Engineer
> StarTouch, Inc.
> http://www.startouch.com
> 360-543-5679 ext. 111
> Microwave - Fiber Optics - Internet Services
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Hi Jerry,

I would update the config as follows (if you're just doing a basic P2P
pseudowire, go for the KISS approach):

> ASR9K:
interface TenGigE0/0/1/0.95 l2transport
encapsulation dot1q 95
rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric
mtu 9118 ! Needs to be +14 for Ethernet +4 for VLAN tag on IOS-XR
> l2vpn
> xconnect group mpls1
> p2p test1
> interface TenGigE0/0/1/0.95
> neighbor ipv4 10.100.66.1 pw-id 95

> ASR920:
> interface TenGigabitEthernet0/0/25
> mtu 9100 ! Excludes Ethernet and VLAN tag on IOS-XE
> no ip address
> cdp enable
> service instance 95 ethernet
> encapsulation dot1q 95
rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric
xconnect 10.100.25.11 95 encapsulation mpls


Then remove this unless you want to set up a VPLS/P2MP/MP2MP L2 VPN:

> l2vpn xconnect context test1
> member TenGigabitEthernet0/0/25 service-instance 95
> member 10.100.25.11 95 encapsulation mpls


If that doesn't work provide us with full the output of "show l2vpn
xconnect pw-id 95 detail" from the ASR9K/IOS-XR and equivalent from
the ASR920/XE.


On Tue, 5 Jan 2021 at 19:34, Jerry Bacon <jerryb@startouch.com> wrote:
>
> The VC is UP/UP/UP on both sides, and the MTU does match (it doesn't
> come up if they don't). The only odd thing that I see, is on the ASR920
> the interworking type is "Ethernet" and on the ASR9K it's "none" (and it
> doesn't support Ethernet). On the ASR920:

On XR "interworking none" is what you should be seeing, and "Ethernet" on XE.

As per the output of "show l2vpn xconnect pw-id 95 detail" on the XR
box, you should see that the "PW Type" is Ethernet for both Local and
Remote... Example below:

MPLS Local Remote
------------ ------------------------------ --------
...
PW type Ethernet Ethernet

Cheers,
James.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

This is exactly what I started with, but it didn't work, which is why I
tried some other things. I have reverted to this configuration.

Can I omit the "rewrite ..." on both sides?

Here's the status on both sides:

RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:startouch-9k-1#show l2vpn xconnect pw-id 95 detail
Wed Jan  6 10:39:49.276 PST

Group mpls1, XC test1, state is up; Interworking none
  AC: TenGigE0/0/1/0.95, state is up
    Type VLAN; Num Ranges: 1
    Rewrite Tags: []
    VLAN ranges: [95, 95]
    MTU 9100; XC ID 0x1200014; interworking none
    Statistics:
      packets: received 811907, sent 28
      bytes: received 55209904, sent 2166
      drops: illegal VLAN 0, illegal length 0
  PW: neighbor 10.100.66.1, PW ID 95, state is up ( established )
    PW class not set, XC ID 0xa0000003
    Encapsulation MPLS, protocol LDP
    Source address 10.100.25.11
    PW type Ethernet, control word disabled, interworking none
    PW backup disable delay 0 sec
    Sequencing not set
    LSP : Up

    PW Status TLV in use
      MPLS         Local                          Remote
      ------------ ------------------------------
-----------------------------
      Label        83377                          165
      Group ID     0x40001c0                      0x1f
      Interface    TenGigE0/0/1/0.95              test1
      MTU          9100                           9100
      Control word disabled                       disabled
      PW type      Ethernet                       Ethernet
      VCCV CV type 0x2                            0x2
                   (LSP ping verification)        (LSP ping verification)
      VCCV CC type 0x6                            0x2
                   (router alert label)           (router alert label)
                   (TTL expiry)
      ------------ ------------------------------
-----------------------------
    Incoming Status (PW Status TLV):
      Status code: 0x0 (Up) in Notification message
    Outgoing Status (PW Status TLV):
      Status code: 0x0 (Up) in Notification message
    MIB cpwVcIndex: 2684354563
    Create time: 06/01/2021 10:27:29 (00:12:20 ago)
    Last time status changed: 06/01/2021 10:27:45 (00:12:04 ago)
    Statistics:
      packets: received 28, sent 811907
      bytes: received 2166, sent 55209904

startouch-asr920-rtr#show mpls l2t vc 95 det
Local interface: Te0/0/25 up, line protocol up, Eth VLAN 95 up
  Interworking type is Ethernet
  Destination address: 10.100.25.11, VC ID: 95, VC status: up
    Output interface: BD3268, imposed label stack {83377}
    Preferred path: not configured
    Default path: active
    Next hop: 10.100.66.74
  Create time: 00:16:26, last status change time: 00:14:35
    Last label FSM state change time: 00:14:45
    Last peer autosense occurred at: 00:14:45
  Signaling protocol: LDP, peer 10.100.25.11:0 up
    Targeted Hello: 10.100.66.1(LDP Id) -> 10.100.25.11, LDP is UP
    Graceful restart: configured and not enabled
    Non stop routing: not configured and not enabled
    Status TLV support (local/remote)   : enabled/supported
      LDP route watch                   : enabled
      Label/status state machine        : established, LruRru
      Last local dataplane   status rcvd: No fault
      Last BFD dataplane     status rcvd: Not sent
      Last BFD peer monitor  status rcvd: No fault
      Last local AC  circuit status rcvd: No fault
      Last local AC  circuit status sent: No fault
      Last local PW i/f circ status rcvd: No fault
      Last local LDP TLV     status sent: No fault
      Last remote LDP TLV    status rcvd: No fault
      Last remote LDP ADJ    status rcvd: No fault
    MPLS VC labels: local 165, remote 83377
    Group ID: local 31, remote 67109312
    MTU: local 9100, remote 9100
    Remote interface description: TenGigE0_0_1_0.95
  Sequencing: receive disabled, send disabled
  Control Word: Off (configured: autosense)
  SSO Descriptor: 10.100.25.11/95, local label: 165
  Dataplane:
    SSM segment/switch IDs: 90237/65659 (used), PWID: 24
  VC statistics:
    transit packet totals: receive 442, send 1
    transit byte totals:   receive 31804, send 90
    transit packet drops:  receive 0, seq error 0, send 0

--

Jerry Bacon
Senior Network Engineer
StarTouch, Inc.
http://www.startouch.com
360-543-5679 ext. 111
Microwave - Fiber Optics - Internet Services

On 1/6/2021 2:30 AM, James Bensley wrote:
> Hi Jerry,
>
> I would update the config as follows (if you're just doing a basic P2P
> pseudowire, go for the KISS approach):
>
>> ASR9K:
> interface TenGigE0/0/1/0.95 l2transport
> encapsulation dot1q 95
> rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric
> mtu 9118 ! Needs to be +14 for Ethernet +4 for VLAN tag on IOS-XR
>> l2vpn
>> xconnect group mpls1
>> p2p test1
>> interface TenGigE0/0/1/0.95
>> neighbor ipv4 10.100.66.1 pw-id 95
>> ASR920:
>> interface TenGigabitEthernet0/0/25
>> mtu 9100 ! Excludes Ethernet and VLAN tag on IOS-XE
>> no ip address
>> cdp enable
>> service instance 95 ethernet
>> encapsulation dot1q 95
> rewrite ingress tag pop 1 symmetric
> xconnect 10.100.25.11 95 encapsulation mpls
>
>
> Then remove this unless you want to set up a VPLS/P2MP/MP2MP L2 VPN:
>
>> l2vpn xconnect context test1
>> member TenGigabitEthernet0/0/25 service-instance 95
>> member 10.100.25.11 95 encapsulation mpls
>
> If that doesn't work provide us with full the output of "show l2vpn
> xconnect pw-id 95 detail" from the ASR9K/IOS-XR and equivalent from
> the ASR920/XE.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Maybe try "encap default" on both sides and see if that works, then you might find that you were having tagging problems.

Outside of that you might need a sniffer to see what it's looking like on the wire

-Aaron


_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

I set this up with a different ASR920 running 16.7.1 and it works. So
there must be some issue with 3.18.5 (15.6(2)).

--

Jerry Bacon
Senior Network Engineer
StarTouch, Inc.
http://www.startouch.com
360-543-5679 ext. 111
Microwave - Fiber Optics - Internet Services

On 1/6/2021 2:30 AM, James Bensley wrote:
> Hi Jerry,
>
> I would update the config as follows (if you're just doing a basic P2P
> pseudowire, go for the KISS approach):
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 18:47, Jerry Bacon <jerryb@startouch.com> wrote:
>
> This is exactly what I started with, but it didn't work, which is why I
> tried some other things. I have reverted to this configuration.
>
> Can I omit the "rewrite ..." on both sides?

Why would you want to? I think that if you do that, a VLAN tagged
frame coming into one end with VLAN 95, will be send over the
pseudoiwre with the VLAN tag still present, at the other end it will
have VLAN 95 push on egress, so it will leave the other end double
tagged with an inner and outer VLAN tag of 95.

> Here's the status on both sides:
>
> RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:startouch-9k-1#show l2vpn xconnect pw-id 95 detail
> Wed Jan 6 10:39:49.276 PST
>
> Group mpls1, XC test1, state is up; Interworking none
> AC: TenGigE0/0/1/0.95, state is up
> Type VLAN; Num Ranges: 1
> Rewrite Tags: []
> VLAN ranges: [95, 95]
> MTU 9100; XC ID 0x1200014; interworking none
> Statistics:
> packets: received 811907, sent 28
> bytes: received 55209904, sent 2166
> drops: illegal VLAN 0, illegal length 0
> PW: neighbor 10.100.66.1, PW ID 95, state is up ( established )
> PW class not set, XC ID 0xa0000003
> Encapsulation MPLS, protocol LDP
> Source address 10.100.25.11
> PW type Ethernet, control word disabled, interworking none
> PW backup disable delay 0 sec
> Sequencing not set
> LSP : Up
>
> PW Status TLV in use
> MPLS Local Remote
> ------------ ------------------------------
> -----------------------------
> Label 83377 165
> Group ID 0x40001c0 0x1f
> Interface TenGigE0/0/1/0.95 test1
> MTU 9100 9100
> Control word disabled disabled
> PW type Ethernet Ethernet
> VCCV CV type 0x2 0x2
> (LSP ping verification) (LSP ping verification)
> VCCV CC type 0x6 0x2
> (router alert label) (router alert label)
> (TTL expiry)
> ------------ ------------------------------
> -----------------------------
> Incoming Status (PW Status TLV):
> Status code: 0x0 (Up) in Notification message
> Outgoing Status (PW Status TLV):
> Status code: 0x0 (Up) in Notification message
> MIB cpwVcIndex: 2684354563
> Create time: 06/01/2021 10:27:29 (00:12:20 ago)
> Last time status changed: 06/01/2021 10:27:45 (00:12:04 ago)
> Statistics:
> packets: received 28, sent 811907
> bytes: received 2166, sent 55209904
>
> startouch-asr920-rtr#show mpls l2t vc 95 det
> Local interface: Te0/0/25 up, line protocol up, Eth VLAN 95 up
> Interworking type is Ethernet
> Destination address: 10.100.25.11, VC ID: 95, VC status: up
> Output interface: BD3268, imposed label stack {83377}
> Preferred path: not configured
> Default path: active
> Next hop: 10.100.66.74
> Create time: 00:16:26, last status change time: 00:14:35
> Last label FSM state change time: 00:14:45
> Last peer autosense occurred at: 00:14:45
> Signaling protocol: LDP, peer 10.100.25.11:0 up
> Targeted Hello: 10.100.66.1(LDP Id) -> 10.100.25.11, LDP is UP
> Graceful restart: configured and not enabled
> Non stop routing: not configured and not enabled
> Status TLV support (local/remote) : enabled/supported
> LDP route watch : enabled
> Label/status state machine : established, LruRru
> Last local dataplane status rcvd: No fault
> Last BFD dataplane status rcvd: Not sent
> Last BFD peer monitor status rcvd: No fault
> Last local AC circuit status rcvd: No fault
> Last local AC circuit status sent: No fault
> Last local PW i/f circ status rcvd: No fault
> Last local LDP TLV status sent: No fault
> Last remote LDP TLV status rcvd: No fault
> Last remote LDP ADJ status rcvd: No fault
> MPLS VC labels: local 165, remote 83377
> Group ID: local 31, remote 67109312
> MTU: local 9100, remote 9100
> Remote interface description: TenGigE0_0_1_0.95
> Sequencing: receive disabled, send disabled
> Control Word: Off (configured: autosense)
> SSO Descriptor: 10.100.25.11/95, local label: 165
> Dataplane:
> SSM segment/switch IDs: 90237/65659 (used), PWID: 24
> VC statistics:
> transit packet totals: receive 442, send 1
> transit byte totals: receive 31804, send 90
> transit packet drops: receive 0, seq error 0, send 0

^ everything looks fine here. Is this still not working? If not, did
you have it configured with the "rewrite" statement?

Cheers,
James.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

I will check that out, but I think that as long as both ends are the
same (both with rewrite, or both without) it will work correctly.

I did solve this problem, though I'm not sure exactly what the true
nature of the issue really is. As you noted, everything looks right, but
I can't get any actual traffic across the VC. Upgrading to 16.7.1,
without any other changes, makes it work.

--

Jerry Bacon
Senior Network Engineer
StarTouch, Inc.
http://www.startouch.com
360-543-5679 ext. 111
Microwave - Fiber Optics - Internet Services

On 1/12/2021 9:02 AM, James Bensley wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2021 at 18:47, Jerry Bacon <jerryb@startouch.com> wrote:
>> This is exactly what I started with, but it didn't work, which is why I
>> tried some other things. I have reverted to this configuration.
>>
>> Can I omit the "rewrite ..." on both sides?
> Why would you want to? I think that if you do that, a VLAN tagged
> frame coming into one end with VLAN 95, will be send over the
> pseudoiwre with the VLAN tag still present, at the other end it will
> have VLAN 95 push on egress, so it will leave the other end double
> tagged with an inner and outer VLAN tag of 95.
>
>> Here's the status on both sides:
>>
>> RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:startouch-9k-1#show l2vpn xconnect pw-id 95 detail
>> Wed Jan 6 10:39:49.276 PST
>>
>> Group mpls1, XC test1, state is up; Interworking none
>> AC: TenGigE0/0/1/0.95, state is up
>> Type VLAN; Num Ranges: 1
>> Rewrite Tags: []
>> VLAN ranges: [95, 95]
>> MTU 9100; XC ID 0x1200014; interworking none
>> Statistics:
>> packets: received 811907, sent 28
>> bytes: received 55209904, sent 2166
>> drops: illegal VLAN 0, illegal length 0
>> PW: neighbor 10.100.66.1, PW ID 95, state is up ( established )
>> PW class not set, XC ID 0xa0000003
>> Encapsulation MPLS, protocol LDP
>> Source address 10.100.25.11
>> PW type Ethernet, control word disabled, interworking none
>> PW backup disable delay 0 sec
>> Sequencing not set
>> LSP : Up
>>
>> PW Status TLV in use
>> MPLS Local Remote
>> ------------ ------------------------------
>> -----------------------------
>> Label 83377 165
>> Group ID 0x40001c0 0x1f
>> Interface TenGigE0/0/1/0.95 test1
>> MTU 9100 9100
>> Control word disabled disabled
>> PW type Ethernet Ethernet
>> VCCV CV type 0x2 0x2
>> (LSP ping verification) (LSP ping verification)
>> VCCV CC type 0x6 0x2
>> (router alert label) (router alert label)
>> (TTL expiry)
>> ------------ ------------------------------
>> -----------------------------
>> Incoming Status (PW Status TLV):
>> Status code: 0x0 (Up) in Notification message
>> Outgoing Status (PW Status TLV):
>> Status code: 0x0 (Up) in Notification message
>> MIB cpwVcIndex: 2684354563
>> Create time: 06/01/2021 10:27:29 (00:12:20 ago)
>> Last time status changed: 06/01/2021 10:27:45 (00:12:04 ago)
>> Statistics:
>> packets: received 28, sent 811907
>> bytes: received 2166, sent 55209904
>>
>> startouch-asr920-rtr#show mpls l2t vc 95 det
>> Local interface: Te0/0/25 up, line protocol up, Eth VLAN 95 up
>> Interworking type is Ethernet
>> Destination address: 10.100.25.11, VC ID: 95, VC status: up
>> Output interface: BD3268, imposed label stack {83377}
>> Preferred path: not configured
>> Default path: active
>> Next hop: 10.100.66.74
>> Create time: 00:16:26, last status change time: 00:14:35
>> Last label FSM state change time: 00:14:45
>> Last peer autosense occurred at: 00:14:45
>> Signaling protocol: LDP, peer 10.100.25.11:0 up
>> Targeted Hello: 10.100.66.1(LDP Id) -> 10.100.25.11, LDP is UP
>> Graceful restart: configured and not enabled
>> Non stop routing: not configured and not enabled
>> Status TLV support (local/remote) : enabled/supported
>> LDP route watch : enabled
>> Label/status state machine : established, LruRru
>> Last local dataplane status rcvd: No fault
>> Last BFD dataplane status rcvd: Not sent
>> Last BFD peer monitor status rcvd: No fault
>> Last local AC circuit status rcvd: No fault
>> Last local AC circuit status sent: No fault
>> Last local PW i/f circ status rcvd: No fault
>> Last local LDP TLV status sent: No fault
>> Last remote LDP TLV status rcvd: No fault
>> Last remote LDP ADJ status rcvd: No fault
>> MPLS VC labels: local 165, remote 83377
>> Group ID: local 31, remote 67109312
>> MTU: local 9100, remote 9100
>> Remote interface description: TenGigE0_0_1_0.95
>> Sequencing: receive disabled, send disabled
>> Control Word: Off (configured: autosense)
>> SSO Descriptor: 10.100.25.11/95, local label: 165
>> Dataplane:
>> SSM segment/switch IDs: 90237/65659 (used), PWID: 24
>> VC statistics:
>> transit packet totals: receive 442, send 1
>> transit byte totals: receive 31804, send 90
>> transit packet drops: receive 0, seq error 0, send 0
> ^ everything looks fine here. Is this still not working? If not, did
> you have it configured with the "rewrite" statement?
>
> Cheers,
> James.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 18:02, James Bensley
<jwbensley+cisco-nsp@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can I omit the "rewrite ..." on both sides?
>
> Why would you want to? I think that if you do that, a VLAN tagged
> frame coming into one end with VLAN 95, will be send over the
> pseudoiwre with the VLAN tag still present, at the other end it will
> have VLAN 95 push on egress, so it will leave the other end double
> tagged with an inner and outer VLAN tag of 95.

I don't believe this is what happens.

"rewrite ingress pop 1 symmetric" <-- the symmetric keyword means that
it pushes on egress and pops on ingress.

Without "rewrite *" it does neither afaik; therefore, if you have the
same configuration end-to-end, it works, because the tag is preserved
as-is and no vlan tags are pushed or popped anyware (just labels, of
course).

That's said I don't like the configuration without the rewrite keyword
at all, because it is confusing and redundant to have to include the
vlan tag, when all you need to transport is a single vlan. And it is
easier to get configuration mismatches when you do it this way.


Lukas
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Finally was able to get this all working and tested. As we surmised, it
works properly either with or without the "rewrite", as long as it's
symmetrical. So I guess it comes down to a personal or network
preference. I can see a slight advantage to always doing it, as it
uncouples the VLAN encapsulation on the two sides.

Thanks again for all your help.

--

Jerry Bacon
Senior Network Engineer
StarTouch, Inc.
http://www.startouch.com
360-543-5679 ext. 111
Microwave - Fiber Optics - Internet Services

On 1/12/2021 9:22 AM, Lukas Tribus wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 at 18:02, James Bensley
> <jwbensley+cisco-nsp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Can I omit the "rewrite ..." on both sides?
>> Why would you want to? I think that if you do that, a VLAN tagged
>> frame coming into one end with VLAN 95, will be send over the
>> pseudoiwre with the VLAN tag still present, at the other end it will
>> have VLAN 95 push on egress, so it will leave the other end double
>> tagged with an inner and outer VLAN tag of 95.
> I don't believe this is what happens.
>
> "rewrite ingress pop 1 symmetric" <-- the symmetric keyword means that
> it pushes on egress and pops on ingress.
>
> Without "rewrite *" it does neither afaik; therefore, if you have the
> same configuration end-to-end, it works, because the tag is preserved
> as-is and no vlan tags are pushed or popped anyware (just labels, of
> course).
>
> That's said I don't like the configuration without the rewrite keyword
> at all, because it is confusing and redundant to have to include the
> vlan tag, when all you need to transport is a single vlan. And it is
> easier to get configuration mismatches when you do it this way.
>
>
> Lukas
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 at 02:51, Jerry Bacon <jerryb@startouch.com> wrote:

> Finally was able to get this all working and tested. As we surmised, it
> works properly either with or without the "rewrite", as long as it's
> symmetrical. So I guess it comes down to a personal or network
> preference. I can see a slight advantage to always doing it, as it
> uncouples the VLAN encapsulation on the two sides.

There is VLAN rewrite, always (except some really old linecards), so
you do not need to have the same VLAN-id on both ends.

You do want to normalise your network to 0 or 1 SVLAN, so that A end
provisioning is independent of B end provisioning, greatly reducing
complexity and configuration permutations.

I personally like 1 SVLAN normalisation, so that we can carry 802.1p.
This also means, even in port mode, I'll impose additional SVLAN on
the port-mode end, and force the type to VLAN, so that far-side VLAN
mode is unaware that it is interoperating with port mode.


--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Yeah, metro ethernet (efp) concepts are beautiful.... such a departure from
the legacy enterprise vlan concepts of network-wide vlan uniqueness... nope,
no more, do whatever the heck you wanna do with a vlan at the PE-CE edge,
and carry it across or not. (no more vtp domains, etc)

-Aaron


_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/