Troubleshoot In-line BGP VPNv4 RR with Same Route-Distinguisher and 'cef encap-sharing disabled'
Available Languages
Contents
Introduction
This document describes the behavior of Cisco Systems Network Convergence System (NCS) 540 while used as Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) VPNv4 in-line Route Reflector (RR) and Provider Edge (PE).
Background Information
This document focus on NCS 540 behavior as verified in a lab environment with Cisco IOS® XR software release 7.3.1. behavior described in this document applies to all NCS5500 or NCS500 series DNX-based platforms and software releases.
Problem
Consider the scenario where NCS540 is configured with a Virtual Routing and Forwarding (VRF) instance and uses the same Route-Distinguisher (RD) value as the one used by remote PE RR client nodes. When used as an in-line RR and PE role and configured with the same RD value as remote PE RR client nodes the topmost label is not popped before forwarding which leads to packet drop at egress PE.
Scenario 1. In-line RR and PE with Distinct RD Value
The image shows the scenario of Device Under Test (DUT) configured as BGP VPNv4 in-line RR and PE with a distinct RD value for VRF vrf1 than the one used by the other PE nodes.
Image 1 - DUT - in-line RR and PE with distinct RD value.
IP Connectivity between Ingress PE (IP 10.51.232.21) and Egress PE (10.51.232.145) within VRF vrf1 is established with packets successfully forwarded between PE nodes as shown by Ping and Traceroute commands output:
INGRESS_PE#ping vrf vrf1 10.51.232.145 source 10.51.232.21
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.51.232.145, timeout is 2 seconds:
Packet sent with a source address of 10.51.232.21
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/4 ms
INGRESS_PE#traceroute vrf vrf1 10.51.232.145 source 10.51.232.21
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 10.51.232.145
VRF info: (vrf in name/id, vrf out name/id)
1 10.51.5.161 [MPLS: Label 24017 Exp 0] 4 msec 8 msec 0 msec
2 10.9.255.207 [MPLS: Labels 23481/24008 Exp 0] 4 msec 0 msec 0 msec
3 10.9.255.217 0 msec * 4 msec
The DUT is a BGP VPNv4 in-line RR and PE with VRF locally configured, but that uses a distinct RD value (65000:104) than the one used by the PE RR client nodes (65000:104830). As exhibited by the outputs, the DUT imports all routes and exchanges VPNv4 labels accordingly:
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:DUT-N540#show bgp vpnv4 unicast
BGP router identifier 10.9.255.8, local AS number 65000
<snip>
Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
Route Distinguisher: 65000:104 (default for vrf vrf1)
*>i0.0.0.0/0 10.48.255.30 10 100 0 ?
*>i10.51.232.20/30 10.51.5.5 0 100 0 ?
*>i10.51.232.145/32 10.48.255.30 0 100 0 ?
Route Distinguisher: 65000:104830
*>i0.0.0.0/0 10.48.255.30 10 100 0 ?
*>i10.51.232.20/30 10.51.5.5 0 100 0 ?
*>i10.51.232.145/32 10.48.255.30 0 100 0 ?
<snip>
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:DUT-N540#show bgp vpnv4 unicast rd 65000:104 labels
BGP router identifier 10.9.255.8, local AS number 65000
<snip>
Network Next Hop Rcvd Label Local Label
Route Distinguisher: 21497:104 (default for vrf vrf1)
*>i0.0.0.0/0 10.48.255.30 24008 nolabel
*>i10.51.232.20/30 10.51.5.5 17 nolabel
*>i10.51.232.145/32 10.48.255.30 24008 nolabel
<snip>
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:DUT-N540#show bgp vpnv4 unicast rd 65000:104830 labels
BGP router identifier 10.9.255.8, local AS number 65000
<snip>
Network Next Hop Rcvd Label Local Label
Route Distinguisher: 21497:104830
*>i0.0.0.0/0 10.48.255.30 24008 24018
*>i10.51.232.20/30 10.51.5.5 17 24019
*>i10.51.232.145/32 10.48.255.30 24008 24017
<snip>
As an additional reference in the present scenario of in-line RR and PE that uses a distinct RD value, the complete output for prefix 10.51.232.145/32 as received from EGRESS_PE node is shown:
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:DUT-N540#show bgp vpnv4 unicast rd 65000:104 10.51.232.145
BGP routing table entry for 10.51.232.145/32, Route Distinguisher: 65000:104
Versions:
Process bRIB/RIB SendTblVer
Speaker 115 115
Last Modified: Feb 8 11:00:27.032 for 2w6d
Paths: (1 available, best #1)
Not advertised to any peer
Path #1: Received by speaker 0
Not advertised to any peer
Local, (received & used)
10.48.255.30 (metric 20) from 10.48.255.30 (10.48.255.30)
Received Label 24008
Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best, group-best, import-candidate, imported
Received Path ID 1, Local Path ID 1, version 115
Extended community: RT:65000:104830 RT:65000:105130
Source AFI: VPNv4 Unicast, Source VRF: default, Source Route Distinguisher: 65000:104830
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:DUT-N540#show bgp vpnv4 unicast rd 65000:104830 10.51.232.145
BGP routing table entry for 10.51.232.145/32, Route Distinguisher: 65000:104830
Versions:
Process bRIB/RIB SendTblVer
Speaker 113 113
Local Label: 24017
Last Modified: Feb 8 11:00:22.032 for 2w6d
Paths: (1 available, best #1)
Advertised to peers (in unique update groups):
10.51.5.5
Path #1: Received by speaker 0
Advertised to peers (in unique update groups):
10.51.5.5
Local, (received & used)
10.48.255.30 (metric 20) from 10.48.255.30 (10.48.255.30)
Received Label 24008
Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best, group-best, import-candidate, not-in-vrf
Received Path ID 1, Local Path ID 1, version 113
Extended community: RT:65000:104830 RT:65000:10513
The packets sourced from INGRESS_PE (10.51.232.21) and destined to EGRESS PE (10.51.232.145) are label switched, and at the DUT top label {24017} swapped by {23481 24008} as per programmed forwarding details:
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:DUT-N540#show cef vrf vrf1 10.51.232.145/32 detail
10.51.232.145/32, version 96, internal 0x5000001 0x0 (ptr 0x8ce0d034) [1], 0x0 (0x8b941ee0), 0xa08 (0x8cacb5f8)
Updated Feb 25 12:18:36.885
Prefix Len 32, traffic index 0, precedence n/a, priority 3
gateway array (0x8b7b6fd0) reference count 2, flags 0x38, source rib (7), 0 backups
[3 type 1 flags 0x8441 (0x8cb11e28) ext 0x0 (0x0)]
LW-LDI[type=1, refc=1, ptr=0x8b941ee0, sh-ldi=0x8cb11e28]
gateway array update type-time 1 Feb 25 12:18:36.885
LDI Update time Feb 25 12:18:36.885
LW-LDI-TS Feb 25 12:18:36.885
via 10.48.255.30/32, 7 dependencies, recursive [flags 0x6000]
path-idx 0 NHID 0x0 [0x8d37e3b8 0x0]
recursion-via-/32
next hop VRF - 'default', table - 0xe0000000
next hop 10.48.255.30/32 via 23481/0/21
next hop 10.9.255.207/32 BE100 labels imposed {23481 24008}
Load distribution: 0 (refcount 3)
Hash OK Interface Address
0 Y recursive 23481/0
At P-NODE, with Netflow configured to match ingress traffic sourced from INGRESS_PE node, the expected label stack {23481 24008} is observed as shown in the flow monitor output:
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:P_NODE#show flow monitor MONITOR_MAP_MPLS cache location 0/RP0/CPU0
<snip>
LabelType Prefix/Length Label1-EXP-S Label2-EXP-S Label3-EXP-S InputInterface OutputInterface ForwardStatus FirstSwitched LastSwitched ByteCount PacketCount Dir SamplerID IPV4SrcAddr IPV4DstAddr IPV4TOS IPV4Prot L4SrcPort L4DestPort L4TCPFlags InputVRFID OutputVRFID BGPNextHopV4
Unknown 10.48.255.30/32 23481-0-0 24008-0-1 -
BE100 BE1 Fwd 33 17:49:08:468 33 17:49:11:765 108000 1000 Ing 1 10.51.232.21 10.51.232.145 0 icmp 0 0 0 default default 0.0.0.0
<snip>
Scenario 2. In-line RR and PE with Same RD Value
The image shows the problematic scenario with DUT configured as BGP VPNv4 in-line RR and PE but now configured with the same RD value for VRF vrf1 - 65000:10430 - as the other PE nodes.
Image 2 - DUT - in-line RR and PE with same RD value.
In this scenario, the IP Connectivity between Ingress PE (IP 10.51.232.21) and Egress PE (10.51.232.145) within VRF vrf1 fails as shown with Ping and Traceroute commands output:
INGRESS_PE#ping vrf vrf1 10.51.232.145 source 10.51.232.21
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.51.232.145, timeout is 2 seconds:
Packet sent with a source address of 10.51.232.21
.....
Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)
INGRESS_PE#traceroute vrf vrf1 10.51.232.145 source 10.51.232.21
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 10.51.232.145
VRF info: (vrf in name/id, vrf out name/id)
1 10.51.5.161 [MPLS: Label 24013 Exp 0] 4 msec 4 msec 0 msec
2 * * *
<snip>
At DUT, problem origin is not clearly perceived from either BGP or programmed forwarding outputs with all seen as expected:
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:DUT-N540#show bgp vpnv4 unicast
BGP router identifier 10.9.255.8, local AS number 65000
<snip>
Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path
Route Distinguisher: 65000:104830 (default for vrf vrf1)
*>i0.0.0.0/0 10.48.255.30 10 100 0 ?
*>i10.51.232.20/30 10.51.5.5 0 100 0 ?
*>i10.51.232.145/32 10.48.255.30 0 100 0 ?
<snip>
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:DUT-N540#show bgp vpnv4 unicast rd 65000:104830 labels
BGP router identifier 10.9.255.8, local AS number 65000
<snip>
Network Next Hop Rcvd Label Local Label
Route Distinguisher: 21497:104830 (default for vrf vrf1)
*>i0.0.0.0/0 10.48.255.30 24008 24020
*>i10.51.232.20/30 10.51.5.5 17 24016
*>i10.51.232.145/32 10.48.255.30 24008 24013
<snip>
Similar to the previous section and as an additional reference in the present scenario of in-line RR and PE using the same RD value, the complete output for prefix 10.51.232.145/32 as received from EGRESS_PE node is shown:
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:DUT-N540#show bgp vpnv4 unicast rd 65000:104830 10.51.232.145
BGP routing table entry for 10.51.232.145/32, Route Distinguisher: 65000:104830
Versions:
Process bRIB/RIB SendTblVer
Speaker 134 134
Local Label: 24013
Last Modified: Feb 28 18:03:20.032 for 00:04:50
Paths: (1 available, best #1)
Advertised to peers (in unique update groups):
10.51.5.5
Path #1: Received by speaker 0
Advertised to peers (in unique update groups):
10.51.5.5
Local, (received & used)
10.48.255.30 (metric 20) from 10.48.255.30 (10.48.255.30)
Received Label 24008
Origin incomplete, metric 0, localpref 100, valid, internal, best, group-best, import-candidate, imported
Received Path ID 1, Local Path ID 1, version 134
Extended community: RT:65000:104830 RT:65000:105130
Source AFI: VPNv4 Unicast, Source VRF: vrf1, Source Route Distinguisher: 65000:10483
The packets sourced from INGRESS_PE (10.51.232.21) and destined to EGRESS PE (10.51.232.145), are label switched and the expectation is that at the DUT these packets have their top label {24013} swapped by {23481 24008} as per programmed forwarding details:
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:DUT-N540#show cef vrf vrf1 10.51.232.145/32 detail
10.51.232.145/32, version 107, internal 0x1000001 0x0 (ptr 0x8ce0d13c) [1], 0x0 (0x8b946be8), 0xa08 (0x8cacb7d8)
Updated Feb 28 18:03:19.778
Prefix Len 32, traffic index 0, precedence n/a, priority 3
gateway array (0x8b7b71a0) reference count 6, flags 0x78, source rib (7), 0 backups
[3 type 5 flags 0x8441 (0x8cb125d8) ext 0x0 (0x0)]
LW-LDI[type=5, refc=3, ptr=0x8b946be8, sh-ldi=0x8cb125d8]
gateway array update type-time 1 Feb 28 18:03:19.778
LDI Update time Feb 28 18:03:19.778
LW-LDI-TS Feb 28 18:03:19.778
via 10.48.255.30/32, 7 dependencies, recursive [flags 0x6000]
path-idx 0 NHID 0x0 [0x8d37e3b8 0x0]
recursion-via-/32
next hop VRF - 'default', table - 0xe0000000
next hop 10.48.255.30/32 via 23481/0/21
local label 24013
next hop 10.9.255.207/32 BE100 labels imposed {23481 24008}
Load distribution: 0 (refcount 3)
Hash OK Interface Address
0 Y recursive 23481/0
Further, triage at P_NODE with Netflow configured to match ingress traffic sourced from INGRESS_PE reveals the problem origin to be with how DUT forwards the packet. As highlighted in the output shown, the local-label 24013 is not popped by the DUT before forwarding the packet. Hence, P_NODE receives a three-label stacked MPLS frame {23481 24008 24013} instead of the expected two-label stacked {23481 24008}. At P_NODE top label 23481 is stripped and the packet forwarded towards EGRESS_PE carries as label stack {24008 24013} which leads to packet drop at EGRESS_PE.
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:P_NODE#show flow monitor MONITOR_MAP_MPLS cache location 0/RP0/CPU0
<snip>
LabelType Prefix/Length Label1-EXP-S Label2-EXP-S Label3-EXP-S InputInterface OutputInterface ForwardStatus FirstSwitched LastSwitched ByteCount PacketCount Dir SamplerID IPV4SrcAddr IPV4DstAddr IPV4TOS IPV4Prot L4SrcPort L4DestPort L4TCPFlags InputVRFID OutputVRFID BGPNextHopV4
Unknown 10.48.255.30/32 23481-0-0 24008-0-0 24013-0-1 BE100 BE1 Fwd 33 17:51:40:181 33 17:51:41:521 112000 1000 Ing 1 10.51.232.21 10.51.232.145 0 icmp 0 0 0 default default 0.0.0.0
<snip>
Scenario 3. In-line RR and PE with Same RD Value and 'cef encap-sharing disable' Configured
On top of the previous scenario, cef encap-sharing disable is configured and separate hardware resources are allocated for every prefix.
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:DUT-N540(config)#cef encap-sharing disable
Warning: The command will clear the forwarding table.Traffic loss is expected during rebuilding.
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:DUT-N540(config)#commit
The image exhibits the scenario of in-line RR and PE configured with the same RD and configured with cef encap-sharing disabled.
Image 3 - DUT - in-line RR and PE with same RD value and 'cef encap-sharing disable' configured.
IP Connectivity between Ingress PE (IP 10.51.232.21) and Egress PE (10.51.232.145) within VRF vrf1 is restored with packets once more successfully forwarded between PE nodes as shown by Ping and Traceroute command outputs:
INGRESS_PE#ping vrf vrf1 10.51.232.145 source 10.51.232.21 repeat 1000
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 1000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.51.232.145, timeout is 2 seconds:
Packet sent with a source address of 10.51.232.21
<snip>
Success rate is 100 percent (1000/1000), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/3/12 ms
INGRESS_PE#traceroute vrf vrf1 10.51.232.145 source 10.51.232.21
Type escape sequence to abort.
Tracing the route to 10.51.232.145
VRF info: (vrf in name/id, vrf out name/id)
1 10.51.5.161 [MPLS: Label 24013 Exp 0] 0 msec 0 msec 0 msec
2 10.9.255.207 [MPLS: Labels 23481/24008 Exp 0] 4 msec 4 msec 0 msec
3 10.9.255.217 0 msec * 0 msec
At P_NODE, the Netflow output reveals that DUT now forwards the packet with the expected label stack {23481 24008}. P_NODE strips the top label 23481 and forwards the packet towards EGRESS_PE node with label stack {24008} which EGRESS_PE is able to match and successfully forward encapsulated packet towards its final destination within VRF1.
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:P_NODE#show flow monitor MONITOR_MAP_MPLS cache location 0/RP0/CPU0
Cache summary for Flow Monitor MONITOR_MAP_MPLS:
<snip>
LabelType Prefix/Length Label1-EXP-S Label2-EXP-S Label3-EXP-S InputInterface OutputInterface ForwardStatus FirstSwitched LastSwitched ByteCount PacketCount Dir SamplerID IPV4SrcAddr IPV4DstAddr IPV4TOS IPV4Prot L4SrcPort L4DestPort L4TCPFlags InputVRFID OutputVRFID BGPNextHopV4
Unknown 10.48.255.30/32 23481-0-0 24008-0-1 - BE100 BE1 Fwd 33 18:03:14:211 33 18:03:17:505 108000 1000 Ing 1 10.51.232.21 10.51.232.145 0 icmp 0 0 0 default default 0.0.0.0
<snip>
With cef encap-sharing disable configuration, additional hardware resources are allocated for every prefix, and required forwarding information is in place at DUT to correctly forward packets in this particular scenario of in-line RR with the same RD value. With the purpose to highlight the distinction with regards to programmed forwarding details, refer to the two outputs shown of show cef vrf vrf1 10.51.232.145/32 hardware egress location 0/RP0/CPU0 and note the additional information included when cef encap-sharing disable is configured.
As seen in the scenario of in-line RR and PE with same RD value but without 'cef encap-sharing disable' configured (default):
!
! --- without 'cef encap-sharing disable' (default)
! --- note highlighted (bold) sections
!
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:DUT-N540#show cef vrf vrf1 10.51.232.145/32 hardware egress location 0/RP0/CPU0
10.51.232.145/32, version 107, internal 0x1000001 0x0 (ptr 0x8ce0d13c) [1], 0x0 (0x8b946be8), 0xa08 (0x8cacb7d8)
Updated Feb 28 18:03:19.778
Prefix Len 32, traffic index 0, precedence n/a, priority 3
gateway array (0x8b7b71a0) reference count 6, flags 0x78, source rib (7), 0 backups
[3 type 5 flags 0x8441 (0x8cb125d8) ext 0x0 (0x0)]
LW-LDI[type=5, refc=3, ptr=0x8b946be8, sh-ldi=0x8cb125d8]
gateway array update type-time 1 Feb 28 18:03:19.778
LDI Update time Feb 28 18:03:19.778
LW-LDI-TS Feb 28 18:03:19.778
via 10.48.255.30/32, 7 dependencies, recursive [flags 0x6000]
path-idx 0 NHID 0x0 [0x8d37e3b8 0x0]
recursion-via-/32
next hop VRF - 'default', table - 0xe0000000
next hop 10.48.255.30/32 via 23481/0/21
local label 24013
next hop 10.9.255.207/32 BE100 labels imposed {23481 24008}
Show-data Print at RPLC
LEAF - HAL pd context :
sub-type : IPV4, ecd_marked:0, has_collapsed_ldi:0
collapse_bwalk_required:0, ecdv2_marked:0,
HW Walk:
LEAF:
PI:0x8ce0d13c PD:0x8ce0d1dc rev:892768 type: IPV4 (0)
LEAF location: LEM
FEC key: 0x57f40001104
LWLDI:
PI:0x8b946be8 PD:0x8b946c28 rev:892767 p-rev:892766 ldi type:IMP_EOS0_EOS1
FEC key: 0x57f40001104 fec index: 0x0(0) num paths:1, bkup paths: 0
REC-SHLDI HAL PD context :
ecd_marked:0, collapse_bwalk_required:0, load_shared_lb:0
RSHLDI:
PI:0x8cb125d8 PD:0x8cb126a8 rev:892766 dpa-rev:41494702 flag:0x1
FEC key: 0x57f40001104 fec index: 0x2000ffcc(65484) num paths: 1
p-rev:854950
Path:0 fec index: 0x2000ffcc(65484) DSP fec index: 0x2000ffca(65482)
MPLS EEI push label: 24008
LEAF - HAL pd context :
sub-type : MPLS, ecd_marked:0, has_collapsed_ldi:0
collapse_bwalk_required:0, ecdv2_marked:0,
HW Walk:
LEAF:
PI:0x8d37e3b8 PD:0x8d37e458 rev:854953 type: MPLS (2)
LEAF location: LEM
FEC key: 0
LWLDI:
PI:0x8b945288 PD:0x8b9452c8 rev:854950 p-rev:854949 ldi type:IMP_EOS0_EOS1
FEC key: 0x51140001104 fec index: 0x0(0) num paths:1, bkup paths: 0
IMP LDI:
IMP pattern:3
PI:0x8b945288 PD:0x8b9452c8 rev:854950 p-rev:854949
FEC key: 0x51240001104 fec index: 0x2000ffca(65482) num paths:1
Path:0 fec index: 0x2000ffca(65482) DSP:0xc000001
MPLS encap key: 0xf1b0000040014822 MPLS encap id: 0x40014822 Remote: 0
SHLDI:
PI:0x8cb10718 PD:0x8cb107e8 rev:854949 dpa-rev:39755988 flag:0x0
FEC key: 0x51140001104 fec index: 0x2000ffcb(65483) num paths: 1 bkup paths: 0
p-rev:72522
Path:0 fec index: 0x2000ffcb(65483) DSP:0xc000001 Dest fec index: 0x0(0)
TX-NHINFO:
PI: 0x8d11fad0 PD: 0x8d11fb50 rev:72522 dpa-rev:3303803 Encap hdl: 0x8cd16098
Encap id: 0x40010003 Remote: 0 L3 int: 1579 flags: 0x407
npu_mask: 0x1 DMAC: 5c:5a:c7:ff:78:84
Load distribution: 0 (refcount 3)
Hash OK Interface Address
0 Y recursive 23481/0
As seen in the scenario of in-line RR and PE with same RD value and cef encap-sharing disable configured:
!
! --- with 'cef encap-sharing disable'
! --- note highlighted (bold) sections for the extra and additional forwarding information included
!
RP/0/RP0/CPU0:DUT-N540#show cef vrf vrf1 10.51.232.145/32 hardware egress location 0/RP0/CPU0
10.51.232.145/32, version 127, internal 0x1000001 0x0 (ptr 0x8ce0ffa4) [1], 0x0 (0x8b948630), 0xa08 (0x8cacb5f8)
Updated Feb 28 18:26:25.775
Prefix Len 32, traffic index 0, precedence n/a, priority 3
gateway array (0x8b7b5f80) reference count 3, flags 0x78, source rib (7), 0 backups
[2 type 5 flags 0x8441 (0x8cb14c48) ext 0x0 (0x0)]
LW-LDI[type=5, refc=3, ptr=0x8b948630, sh-ldi=0x8cb14c48]
gateway array update type-time 1 Feb 28 18:26:25.775
LDI Update time Feb 28 18:26:25.775
LW-LDI-TS Feb 28 18:26:25.779
via 10.48.255.30/32, 11 dependencies, recursive [flags 0x6000]
path-idx 0 NHID 0x0 [0x8d37e3b8 0x0]
recursion-via-/32
next hop VRF - 'default', table - 0xe0000000
next hop 10.48.255.30/32 via 23481/0/21
local label 24013
next hop 10.9.255.207/32 BE100 labels imposed {23481 24008}
Show-data Print at RPLC
LEAF - HAL pd context :
sub-type : IPV4, ecd_marked:0, has_collapsed_ldi:0
collapse_bwalk_required:0, ecdv2_marked:0,
HW Walk:
LEAF:
PI:0x8ce0ffa4 PD:0x8ce10044 rev:893768 type: IPV4 (0)
LEAF location: LEM
FEC key: 0x5ae40001104
LWLDI:
LSP pattern:3
PI:0x8b948630 PD:0x8b948670 rev:893767 p-rev:893766 ldi type:IMP_EOS0_EOS1
FEC key: 0x5af40001104 fec index: 0x2000ffbf(65471) num paths:1, bkup paths: 0
Path:0 fec index: 0x2000ffbf(65471) DSP fec index:0x20000001(1)
MPLS encap key: 0xf1b000004001482f MPLS encap id: 0x4001482f Remote: 0
IMP LDI:
IMP pattern:3
PI:0x8b948630 PD:0x8b948670 rev:893767 p-rev:893766
FEC key: 0x5ae40001104 fec index: 0x2000ffc0(65472) num paths:1
Path:0 fec index: 0x2000ffc0(65472) DSP fec index: 0x20000001(1)
MPLS encap key: 0xf1b000004001482e MPLS encap id: 0x4001482e Remote: 0
REC-SHLDI HAL PD context :
ecd_marked:0, collapse_bwalk_required:0, load_shared_lb:0
RSHLDI:
PI:0x8cb14c48 PD:0x8cb14d18 rev:893766 dpa-rev:41503635 flag:0x1
FEC key: 0x5ac40001104 fec index: 0x2000ffe0(65504) num paths: 1
p-rev:893704
Indirection ECMP FEC key: 0x5ad20001104 fec index: 0x20000001(1)
Path:0 fec index: 0x2000ffe0(65504) DSP fec index: 0x2000ffca(65482)
LEAF - HAL pd context :
sub-type : MPLS, ecd_marked:0, has_collapsed_ldi:0
collapse_bwalk_required:0, ecdv2_marked:0,
HW Walk:
LEAF:
PI:0x8d37e3b8 PD:0x8d37e458 rev:893707 type: MPLS (2)
LEAF location: LEM
FEC key: 0
LWLDI:
PI:0x8b9451a0 PD:0x8b9451e0 rev:893704 p-rev:893703 ldi type:IMP_EOS0_EOS1
FEC key: 0x59f40001104 fec index: 0x0(0) num paths:1, bkup paths: 0
IMP LDI:
IMP pattern:3
PI:0x8b9451a0 PD:0x8b9451e0 rev:893704 p-rev:893703
FEC key: 0x5a040001104 fec index: 0x2000ffca(65482) num paths:1
Path:0 fec index: 0x2000ffca(65482) DSP:0xc000001
MPLS encap key: 0xf1b0000040014822 MPLS encap id: 0x40014822 Remote: 0
SHLDI:
PI:0x8cb112a0 PD:0x8cb11370 rev:893703 dpa-rev:41503599 flag:0x0
FEC key: 0x59f40001104 fec index: 0x2000ffcb(65483) num paths: 1 bkup paths: 0
p-rev:72522
Path:0 fec index: 0x2000ffcb(65483) DSP:0xc000001 Dest fec index: 0x0(0)
TX-NHINFO:
PI: 0x8d11fad0 PD: 0x8d11fb50 rev:72522 dpa-rev:3303803 Encap hdl: 0x8cd16098
Encap id: 0x40010003 Remote: 0 L3 int: 1579 flags: 0x407
npu_mask: 0x1 DMAC: 5c:5a:c7:ff:78:84
Load distribution: 0 (refcount 2)
Hash OK Interface Address
0 Y recursive 23481/0
Solution
As described throughout this document, the solution for improper label action of the topmost label not popped by in-line RR with the same RD value is to configure cef encap-sharing disable. This configuration is mandatory in this particular scenario and enforces that separate hardware resources are allocated for every prefix which guarantees that proper label action and forwarding happen at the in-line RR node.
Before configuration commit, available resources usage must be assessed to anticipate resources condition once the command is committed. To verify and confirm actual resources consumption these commands can be used:
show controllers npu resources all location all
show controllers fia diagshell 0 "diag alloc all" location all
Revision History
| Revision | Publish Date | Comments |
|---|---|---|
1.0 |
13-Apr-2022 |
Initial Release |
Feedback