CCIE Training

One of the frequent questions I hear regarding L3VPNs, is regarding the bottom VPN label.  In this article, we will focus on the control plane that provides both the VPN and transit labels, and then look at the data plane that results because of those labels.

In the topology, there are 2 customer sites (bottom right, and bottom left).  The BGP, VRFs, Redistribution, etc are all configured to allow us to focus on the control and data plane.   Lets begin by verifying that R1 is sourcing the network, 1.1.1.1/32.

A debug verifies that R1 is sending the updates for 1.1.1.1 to R2.

R2 has learned the route from R1, has assigned a VPN label for it, and has exported it from the VRF into BGP.  This lucky route was assigned the local label of 16 by R2.

We can also look at the MPLS forwarding table on R2 to see the same tag information.

This prefix, as a VPNV4 route, is sent as an update to the iBGP peer R4.   We can force an update with refresh.

The update can be seen on the wire between R2 and R3, (on its way to R4) using a protocol analyzer.  You may also notice that R2 uses outgoing label 19 for forwarding this update to 4.4.4.4   The label can be seen in the MPLS forwarding output above.

The VPN label being advertised in the update is Label 16, which is R2’s local label for the 1.1.1.1 network.

On R4, which will be the ingress PE for transit traffic destined for 1.1.1.1, we can see that the VPN label of 16 is associated with destination network of 1.1.1.1  The next hop of 2.2.2.2 to reach the 1.1.1.1 network, is due to R2 assigning next-hop-self for updates it sends to R4.

We can also see the outgoing MPLS label that R4 will use to reach the next hop of 2.2.2.2.  The label of 18 below, was advertised by R3, as the label to use to reach 2.2.2.2

We can also verify that the route (1.1.1.1) has been imported by R4 into the customer vrf.

So when a transit packet is sent from R5 to 1.1.1.1, R4 should impose 2 labels.   The bottom label will be 16 (the VPN label) for the 1.1.1.1 network (R2 told us about that via the iBGP update), and the top label should be 18 (advertised via LDP from R3), to reach the next hop of 2.2.2.2

On R4 a quick check of the CEF table for the vrf can verify both labels.

A simple trace from R5, to the destination network of 1.1.1.1 should prove all the labels in the path.

The top label of 18 is used to reach the next hop of 2.2.2.2, and the bottom label of 16, which is meaningful to R2, because he sourced it, will be used by R2 in forwarding the transit traffic destined to 1.1.1.1 to the next hop, which is R1.

R3 will pop the transit label off, due to R2 advertising implicit-null for the network 2.2.2.2 (itself).

For more information and step by step training on MPLS, take a look at our newest MPLS self paced course!

If you like, an 8 minute video, that reviews the same steps, may be viewed here.

Thanks for reading!

Keith Barker

In this blog post we’re going to discuss the fundamental logic of how MPLS tunnels allow applications such as L2VPN & L3VPN to work, and how MPLS tunnels enable Service Providers to run what is known as the “BGP Free Core”. In a nutshell, MPLS tunnels allow traffic to transit over devices that have no knowledge of the traffic’s final destination, similar to how GRE tunnels and site-to-site IPsec VPN tunnels work. To accomplish this, MPLS tunnels use a combination of IGP learned information, BGP learned information, and MPLS labels.

In normal IP transit networks, each device in the topology makes a routing decision on a hop-by-hop basis by comparing the destination IP address of the packet to the routing or forwarding table. In MPLS networks, devices make their decision based on the MPLS label contained in the packet that is received. In this manner, MPLS enabled Label Switch Routers (LSRs for short) do not necessarily need IP routing information about all destinations, as long as they know how to forward traffic based on an MPLS label. To demonstrate how this process works, we’ll examine the above topology in two sample cases, first with normal IP packet forwarding, and secondly with IP packet forwarding plus MPLS.

In this topology R4, R5, and R6 represent the Service Provider network, while SW1 and SW2 represent customers that are using the Service Provider for transit. In each example case, the goal of our scenario will be to provide IP packet transport between the 10.1.7.0/24 network attached to SW1, and the 10.1.8.0/24 network attached to SW2.

Case 1: Normal IP Forwarding

In case 1, the devices in the topology are configured as follows. AS 100, which consists of R4, R5, and R6, runs OSPF as an IGP on all internal interfaces, along with a full mesh of iBGP. AS 7, which consists of SW1, and AS 8, which consists of SW2, peer EBGP with AS 100 via R4 and R6 respectively, and advertise the prefixes 10.1.7.0/24 & 10.1.8.0/24 respectively into BGP. The relevant device configurations are as follows. Note that these configs assume that layer 2 connectivity has already been established between the devices.

R4#
interface Loopback0
 ip address 10.1.4.4 255.255.255.255
 ip ospf 1 area 0
!
interface FastEthernet0/0
 ip address 10.1.47.4 255.255.255.0
!
interface FastEthernet0/1
 ip address 10.1.45.4 255.255.255.0
 ip ospf 1 area 0
!
router bgp 100
 neighbor 10.1.6.6 remote-as 100
 neighbor 10.1.6.6 update-source Loopback0
 neighbor 10.1.6.6 next-hop-self
 neighbor 10.1.45.5 remote-as 100
 neighbor 10.1.45.5 next-hop-self
 neighbor 10.1.47.7 remote-as 7

R5#
interface FastEthernet0/0
 ip address 10.1.45.5 255.255.255.0
 ip ospf 1 area 0
!
interface FastEthernet0/1
 ip address 10.1.56.5 255.255.255.0
 ip ospf 1 area 0
!
router bgp 100
 neighbor 10.1.45.4 remote-as 100
 neighbor 10.1.56.6 remote-as 100

R6#
interface Loopback0
 ip address 10.1.6.6 255.255.255.255
 ip ospf 1 area 0
!
interface FastEthernet0/0
 ip address 10.1.56.6 255.255.255.0
 ip ospf 1 area 0
!
interface FastEthernet0/1
 ip address 10.1.68.6 255.255.255.0
!
router bgp 100
 neighbor 10.1.4.4 remote-as 100
 neighbor 10.1.4.4 update-source Loopback0
 neighbor 10.1.4.4 next-hop-self
 neighbor 10.1.56.5 remote-as 100
 neighbor 10.1.56.5 next-hop-self
 neighbor 10.1.68.8 remote-as 8

SW1#
interface Loopback0
 ip address 10.1.7.7 255.255.255.0
!
interface Vlan47
 ip address 10.1.47.7 255.255.255.0
!
router bgp 7
 network 10.1.7.0 mask 255.255.255.0
 neighbor 10.1.47.4 remote-as 100

SW2#
interface Loopback0
 ip address 10.1.8.8 255.255.255.0
!
interface Vlan68
 ip address 10.1.68.8 255.255.255.0
!
router bgp 8
 network 10.1.8.0 mask 255.255.255.0
 neighbor 10.1.68.6 remote-as 100

Next, let’s examine the hop-by-hop packet flow as traffic moves between the 10.1.7.0/24 and 10.1.8.0/24 networks, starting at SW1 towards SW2, and then back in the reverse direction. Note that verification should be done in both directions, as packet flow from the source to destination is independent of packet flow from the destination back to the source.

SW1#show ip route 10.1.8.0
Routing entry for 10.1.8.0/24
  Known via "bgp 7", distance 20, metric 0
  Tag 100, type external
  Last update from 10.1.47.4 00:21:13 ago
  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
  * 10.1.47.4, from 10.1.47.4, 00:21:13 ago
      Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
      AS Hops 2
      Route tag 100

On SW1, the prefix 10.1.8.0 is learned via BGP from R4, with a next-hop of 10.1.47.4. Next, SW1 performs a second recursive lookup on the next-hop to see which interface must be used for packet forwarding.

SW1#show ip route 10.1.47.4
Routing entry for 10.1.47.0/24
  Known via "connected", distance 0, metric 0 (connected, via interface)
  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
  * directly connected, via Vlan47
      Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1

The result of this lookup is that SW1 should use interface Vlan47, which connects towards R4. Assuming that underlying IP address to MAC address resolution is successful, packets going to 10.1.8.0 should be properly routed towards R4. Next, the lookup process continues on R4.

R4#show ip route 10.1.8.0
Routing entry for 10.1.8.0/24
  Known via "bgp 100", distance 200, metric 0
  Tag 8, type internal
  Last update from 10.1.6.6 00:25:19 ago
  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
  * 10.1.6.6, from 10.1.6.6, 00:25:19 ago
      Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
      AS Hops 1
      Route tag 8

R4 is learning the prefix 10.1.8.0 via iBGP from R6, with a next-hop value of 10.1.6.6, R6’s Loopback0 interface. R4 must now perform an additional recursive lookup to figure out what interface 10.1.6.6 is reachable out.

R4#show ip route 10.1.6.6
Routing entry for 10.1.6.6/32
  Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 3, type intra area
  Last update from 10.1.45.5 on FastEthernet0/1, 00:25:26 ago
  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
  * 10.1.45.5, from 10.1.6.6, 00:25:26 ago, via FastEthernet0/1
      Route metric is 3, traffic share count is 1

R4 knows 10.1.6.6 via OSPF from R5, which uses interface FastEthernet0/1. Assuming layer 2 connectivity is working properly, packets towards 10.1.8.0 are now routed to R5, and the lookup process continues.

R5#show ip route 10.1.8.0
Routing entry for 10.1.8.0/24
  Known via "bgp 100", distance 200, metric 0
  Tag 8, type internal
  Last update from 10.1.56.6 00:24:36 ago
  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
  * 10.1.56.6, from 10.1.56.6, 00:24:36 ago
      Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
      AS Hops 1
      Route tag 8

R5 is learning the prefix 10.1.8.0 via iBGP from R6, with a next-hop of 10.1.56.6. A recursive lookup on the next-hop, as seen below, indicates that R5 should use interface FastEthernet0/1 to forward packets towards 10.1.8.0.

R5#show ip route 10.1.56.6
Routing entry for 10.1.56.0/24
  Known via "connected", distance 0, metric 0 (connected, via interface)
  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
  * directly connected, via FastEthernet0/1
      Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1

The lookup process now continues on R6, as seen below.

R6#show ip route 10.1.8.0
Routing entry for 10.1.8.0/24
  Known via "bgp 100", distance 20, metric 0
  Tag 8, type external
  Last update from 10.1.68.8 00:28:58 ago
  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
  * 10.1.68.8, from 10.1.68.8, 00:28:58 ago
      Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
      AS Hops 1
      Route tag 8

R6 is learning the prefix 10.1.8.0 via EBGP from SW2, with a next-hop of 10.1.68.8.

R6#show ip route 10.1.68.8
Routing entry for 10.1.68.0/24
  Known via "connected", distance 0, metric 0 (connected, via interface)
  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
  * directly connected, via FastEthernet0/1
      Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1

A recursive lookup on 10.1.68.8 from R6 dictates that interface FastEthernet0/1 should be used to forward traffic on to SW2.

SW2#show ip route 10.1.8.0
Routing entry for 10.1.8.0/24
  Known via "connected", distance 0, metric 0 (connected, via interface)
  Advertised by bgp 8
  Routing Descriptor Blocks:
  * directly connected, via Loopback0
      Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1

SW2’s lookup for 10.1.8.0 indicates that the destination is directly connected, and packets are routed to the final destination. For return traffic back to 10.1.7.0, a lookup occurs in the reverse direction similar to what we saw above, starting as SW2, and moving to R6, R5, R4, and then finally SW1.

This example shows how the hop-by-hop routing paradigm works in IPv4 networks. While this type of design works, one of the limitations of IPv4 forwarding is that all devices in the transit path must have routing information for all destinations they are forwarding packets towards. If AS 100 was used for Internet transit in this example, each router in the transit path would need 300,000+ routes in their routing tables in order to provide transit to all Internet destinations. This is just one of the many applications for which MPLS can be helpful. By introducing MPLS into this design, the need for large routing tables can be avoided in the core of the Service Provider network.

Case 2: MPLS Forwarding

By enabling MPLS in the Service Provider network of AS 100, BGP can be disabled in the core, lightening the load on devices that are possibly already taxed for resources. The configuration for MPLS in this scenario is very simple, but the understanding of what happens behind the scenes can be intimidating when learning the technology for the first time. To help with this learning curve, we’ll look at the step by step process that occurs when an MPLS tunnel is functional in AS 100.

The configuration changes necessary to implement MPLS in AS 100 are as follows:

R4#
mpls label protocol ldp
!
interface FastEthernet0/1
 mpls ip
!
router bgp 100
 no neighbor 10.1.45.5 remote-as 100

R5#
mpls label protocol ldp
!
interface FastEthernet0/0
 mpls ip
!
interface FastEthernet0/1
 mpls ip
!
no router bgp 100

R6#
mpls label protocol ldp
!
interface FastEthernet0/0
 mpls ip
!
router bgp 100
 no neighbor 10.1.56.5 remote-as 100

Once MPLS is enabled inside AS 100, BGP can be disabled on R5, and the additional BGP peering statements removed on R4 and R6. The end result of this change is surprising for some, as seen below.

R5#show ip route 10.1.7.0
% Subnet not in table
R5#show ip route 10.1.8.0
% Subnet not in table

SW1#ping 10.1.8.8 source 10.1.7.7

Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.1.8.8, timeout is 2 seconds:
Packet sent with a source address of 10.1.7.7
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/4/9 ms

Although R5 no longer has a route to the prefixes 10.1.7.0/24 or 10.1.8.0/24, it can still provide transit for traffic between them. How is this possible you may ask? The key is that an MPLS tunnel has now been formed between the ingress and egress routers of the Service Provider network, which are R4 and R6 in this case.  To see the operation of the MPLS tunnel, we’ll follow the same lookup process as before, but now R4, R5, and R6 will add an additional MPLS label lookup.

Below SW1 looks up the route for 10.1.8.0/24, and finds that it recurses to R4’s next-hop value reachable via the Vlan47 interface.

SW1#show ip route 10.1.8.0
Routing entry for 10.1.8.0/24
 Known via "bgp 7", distance 20, metric 0
 Tag 100, type external
 Last update from 10.1.47.4 01:02:56 ago
 Routing Descriptor Blocks:
 * 10.1.47.4, from 10.1.47.4, 01:02:56 ago
 Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
 AS Hops 2
 Route tag 100

SW1#show ip route 10.1.47.4
Routing entry for 10.1.47.0/24
 Known via "connected", distance 0, metric 0 (connected, via interface)
 Routing Descriptor Blocks:
 * directly connected, via Vlan47
 Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1

Next, R4 receives packets for this destination and performs its own lookup.

R4#show ip route 10.1.8.0
Routing entry for 10.1.8.0/24
 Known via "bgp 100", distance 200, metric 0
 Tag 8, type internal
 Last update from 10.1.6.6 01:05:15 ago
 Routing Descriptor Blocks:
 * 10.1.6.6, from 10.1.6.6, 01:05:15 ago
 Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
 AS Hops 1
 Route tag 8

Like before, R4 finds the route via BGP from R6, with a next-hop of 10.1.6.6.  R4 must now perform a recursive lookup on 10.1.6.6 to find the outgoing interface to reach R6.

R4#show ip route 10.1.6.6
Routing entry for 10.1.6.6/32
 Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 3, type intra area
 Last update from 10.1.45.5 on FastEthernet0/1, 01:06:22 ago
 Routing Descriptor Blocks:
 * 10.1.45.5, from 10.1.6.6, 01:06:22 ago, via FastEthernet0/1
 Route metric is 3, traffic share count is 1

R4’s recursive lookup finds the outgoing interface FastEthernet0/1 with a next-hop of 10.1.45.5.  In normal IP forwarding, the packet would now be sent to the interface driver for layer 2 encapsulation.  However in this case, R4 first checks to see if the interface FastEthernet0/1 is MPLS enabled, as seen below.

R4#show mpls interfaces
Interface              IP            Tunnel   BGP Static Operational
FastEthernet0/1        Yes (ldp)     No       No  No     Yes

Since interface FastEthernet0/1 is running MPLS via Label Distribution Protocol (LDP), R4 now consults the MPLS Label Forwarding Information Base (LFIB) to see if there is an MPLS label assigned to the next-hop we’re trying to reach, 10.1.6.6.

R4#show mpls forwarding-table
Local  Outgoing      Prefix            Bytes Label   Outgoing   Next Hop
Label  Label or VC   or Tunnel Id      Switched      interface
16     Pop Label     10.1.56.0/24      0             Fa0/1      10.1.45.5
17     17            10.1.6.6/32       0             Fa0/1      10.1.45.5
18     18            10.1.68.0/24      0             Fa0/1      10.1.45.5

R4 finds an entry for 10.1.6.6/32 in the LFIB, and uses the outgoing label value of 17.  This means that for traffic going to 10.1.8.0/24, the label 17 will be added to the packet header.  In reality this lookup process occurs as one step, which is the lookup in the CEF table.  The below output of the CEF table for the final destination on R4 shows that label 17 will be used, because it is inherited from the next-hop of 10.1.6.6.

R4#show ip cef 10.1.8.0 detail
10.1.8.0/24, epoch 0
 recursive via 10.1.6.6
 nexthop 10.1.45.5 FastEthernet0/1 label 17

Now that the MPLS label lookup is successful, the packet is label switched to R5, which leads us to the key step in this example.  When R5 receives the packet, it sees that it has an MPLS label in the header.  This means that R5 performs a lookup in the MPLS LFIB first, and not in the regular IP routing table.  Specifically R5 sees the label number 17 coming in, which has a match in the LFIB as seen below.

R5#show mpls forwarding-table

Local  Outgoing      Prefix            Bytes Label   Outgoing   Next Hop

Label  Label or VC   or Tunnel Id      Switched      interface

16     Pop Label     10.1.4.4/32       15447         Fa0/0      10.1.45.4

17     Pop Label     10.1.6.6/32       15393         Fa0/1      10.1.56.6

18     Pop Label     10.1.68.0/24      0             Fa0/1      10.1.56.6

The local label 17 is associated with the destination 10.1.6.6/32.  Although our packets are going to the final destination 10.1.8.0/24, knowing how to get towards the next-hop 10.1.6.6/32 is sufficient for R5, because we know that R6 actually does have the route for the final destination.  Specifically R5’s operation at this point is to remove the label 17 from the packet, and continue to forward the packet towards R6 without an additional label.  This operation is known as the “pop” operation, or label disposition.  This occurs because R5 sees the outgoing label as “no label”, which causes it to remove any MPLS labels from the packet, and continue forwarding it.

On the return trip for packets from 10.1.8.0/24 back to 10.1.7.0/24, R6 adds the label 16 and forwards the packet to R5, then R5 removes the label 16 and forwards the packet to R4.  This can be inferred from the LFIB and CEF table verifications below.

R6#show mpls forwarding-table
Local  Outgoing      Prefix            Bytes Label   Outgoing   Next Hop
Label  Label or VC   or Tunnel Id      Switched      interface
16     16            10.1.4.4/32       0             Fa0/0      10.1.56.5
17     Pop Label     10.1.45.0/24      0             Fa0/0      10.1.56.5   

R6#show ip cef 10.1.7.0 detail
10.1.7.0/24, epoch 0
  recursive via 10.1.4.4
    nexthop 10.1.56.5 FastEthernet0/0 label 16

R5#show mpls forwarding-table
Local  Outgoing      Prefix            Bytes Label   Outgoing   Next Hop
Label  Label or VC   or Tunnel Id      Switched      interface
16     No Label      10.1.4.4/32       17606         Fa0/0      10.1.45.4
17     No Label      10.1.6.6/32       17552         Fa0/1      10.1.56.6
18     Pop Label     10.1.68.0/24      0             Fa0/1      10.1.56.6

To see this operation in action, we can send traffic from 10.1.7.0/24 to 10.1.8.0/24, and look at the debug mpls packet output on R5.

R5#debug mpls packet
Packet debugging is on

SW1#ping 10.1.8.8 source 10.1.7.7

Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.1.8.8, timeout is 2 seconds:
Packet sent with a source address of 10.1.7.7
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/4/9 ms

R5#
MPLS les: Fa0/0: rx: Len 118 Stack {17 0 254} - ipv4 data
MPLS les: Fa0/1: rx: Len 118 Stack {16 0 254} - ipv4 data
MPLS les: Fa0/0: rx: Len 118 Stack {17 0 254} - ipv4 data
MPLS les: Fa0/1: rx: Len 118 Stack {16 0 254} - ipv4 data
MPLS les: Fa0/0: rx: Len 118 Stack {17 0 254} - ipv4 data
MPLS les: Fa0/1: rx: Len 118 Stack {16 0 254} - ipv4 data
MPLS les: Fa0/0: rx: Len 118 Stack {17 0 254} - ipv4 data
MPLS les: Fa0/1: rx: Len 118 Stack {16 0 254} - ipv4 data
MPLS les: Fa0/0: rx: Len 118 Stack {17 0 254} - ipv4 data
MPLS les: Fa0/1: rx: Len 118 Stack {16 0 254} - ipv4 data

The beauty of this MPLS design is that for any new routes AS 7 or AS 8 advertise into the network, AS 100 does not need to allocate new MPLS labels in the core.  As long as MPLS transport is established between the BGP peering address of the Provider Edge routers (R4 and R6 in this case), traffic for any destinations can transit over the Service Provider’s network without the core needing any further forwarding information.

R4#show ip route 10.1.6.6
Routing entry for 10.1.6.6/32
Known via "ospf 1", distance 110, metric 3, type intra area
Last update from 10.1.45.5 on FastEthernet0/1, 01:06:22 ago
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* 10.1.45.5, from 10.1.6.6, 01:06:22 ago, via FastEthernet0/1
Route metric is 3, traffic share count is 1

R4#show mpls interfaces
Interface              IP            Tunnel   BGP Static Operational
FastEthernet0/1        Yes (ldp)     No       No  No     Yes
R4#show mpls forw
R4#show mpls forwarding-table
Local  Outgoing      Prefix            Bytes Label   Outgoing   Next Hop
Label  Label or VC   or Tunnel Id      Switched      interface
16     Pop Label     10.1.56.0/24      0             Fa0/1      10.1.45.5
17     17            10.1.6.6/32       0             Fa0/1      10.1.45.5
18     18            10.1.68.0/24      0             Fa0/1      10.1.45.5
R4#show ip cef 10.1.8.0 detail
10.1.8.0/24, epoch 0
recursive via 10.1.6.6
nexthop 10.1.45.5 FastEthernet0/1 label 17

We recently created a new self-paced MPLS course, which walks the learner step by step from concept to implementation for MPLS and L3 VPNs.  Click here for more information.

Time is a valuable resource in the lab.   In a lab task, if asked to configure a policy-map named “BOB”, it doesn’t get the same point value if we happen to accidentally name it “bob”, especially  if they are looking to see if you configured what they asked for.

The challenge is, that when reviewing a lab task, and we discover that we need to change a name, it could be a hassle, as we need to remove the policy-map, recreate the policy map, and then put it in place again.

So if you are down to the last minute, here is a time saving solution, that can assist with that process.

IOS allows us to rename a policy-map, and the IOS will swap out the name in other areas of the configuration that reference that policy map.

Here is an example, of a policy map from Volume 2, lab 5.

Rack1R5#show run policy-map
Building configuration...

Current configuration : 352 bytes
!
policy-map TRANSIT_RATE_LIMIT
class FRAGMENTS
   police rate 1000000 pps burst 200000 packets
policy-map type port-filter HOST_PORT_FILTER
class CLOSED_PORTS
   drop
policy-map CEF_EXCEPTION_RATE_LIMIT
class class-default
   police rate 100 pps burst 20 packets
policy-map HOST_RATE_LIMIT
class ICMP
   police rate 10 pps burst 5 packets
!
end

Rack1R5#show run | begin control
control-plane host
service-policy input HOST_RATE_LIMIT
service-policy type port-filter input HOST_PORT_FILTER
!
control-plane transit
service-policy input TRANSIT_RATE_LIMIT
!
control-plane cef-exception
service-policy input CEF_EXCEPTION_RATE_LIMIT

Let’s say that after reviewing our configuration, we discovered that the policy-map for the cef-exception sub interface of the control plane should have been named “NEW-NAME-CEF”.

To change it everywhere in the configuration, instead of creating it new, and replacing it, we could simply do this:

Rack1R5(config)#policy-map CEF_EXCEPTION_RATE_LIMIT
Rack1R5(config-pmap)#rename NEW-NAME-CEF

Now, when we look at the configuration, we can see that not only the name has changed for the policy-map, but it also updated our control-plane configuration to reflect the new name there as well:

Rack1R5#show run policy-map
Building configuration...

Current configuration : 340 bytes
!
policy-map TRANSIT_RATE_LIMIT
class FRAGMENTS
   police rate 1000000 pps burst 200000 packets
policy-map type port-filter HOST_PORT_FILTER
class CLOSED_PORTS
   drop
policy-map NEW-NAME-CEF
class class-default
   police rate 100 pps burst 20 packets
policy-map HOST_RATE_LIMIT
class ICMP
   police rate 10 pps burst 5 packets
!
end

Rack1R5#show run | begin control
control-plane host
service-policy input HOST_RATE_LIMIT
service-policy type port-filter input HOST_PORT_FILTER
!
control-plane transit
service-policy input TRANSIT_RATE_LIMIT
!
control-plane cef-exception
service-policy input NEW-NAME-CEF
!
!

Best wishes on your studies, and may your policy-maps be named correctly the first time around.

Keith

Can you solve this puzzle?

R2, R3 and R4 create the service provider network, with MPLS on all three routers, and iBGP at the PE routers.  R1 and R5 are the CE routers.

R2, prefers the BGP next hop of 4.4.4.4 for network 5.5.5.5 (R5 loopback). R4, at 4.4.4.4 is an iBGP neighbor.

R2#show ip route vrf v | inc 5.5.5.0
B       5.5.5.0 [200/409600] via 4.4.4.4, 00:06:47

Is R2 preferring an iBGP learned route, which has an AD of 200, over a EIGRP route, which would have an AD of 90?

Can you identify why the routing for 5.5.5.0 on the VRF of R2 is using BGP instead of EIGRP?

Below are the relevant portions of the configuration, which also can serve as a great review of how to configure MPLS VPNs.
R1, CE router:

R1#show run
interface Loopback0
 ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
!
interface FastEthernet0/0
 ip address 10.1.12.1 255.255.255.0
 duplex auto
 speed auto
!
interface Serial0/0
 ip address 10.1.215.1 255.255.255.0
!

router eigrp 1
 network 0.0.0.0
 no auto-summary

R2, PE Router:

R2#show run
!
ip vrf v
 rd 1:1
 route-target export 1:1
 route-target import 1:1
!
!
interface Loopback0
 ip address 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.255
 ip ospf 1 area 0
!
interface FastEthernet0/0
 ip vrf forwarding v
 ip address 10.1.12.2 255.255.255.0
!
interface FastEthernet0/1
 ip address 10.1.23.2 255.255.255.0
 ip ospf 1 area 0
 mpls ip
!
router eigrp 1
 no auto-summary
 !
 address-family ipv4 vrf v
  redistribute bgp 234 metric 1 10000 1 1 1
  network 10.1.12.2 0.0.0.0
  auto-summary
  autonomous-system 1
 exit-address-family
!
router ospf 1
 log-adjacency-changes
!
router bgp 234
 no bgp default ipv4-unicast
 bgp log-neighbor-changes
 neighbor 4.4.4.4 remote-as 234
 neighbor 4.4.4.4 update-source Loopback0
 !
 address-family vpnv4
  neighbor 4.4.4.4 activate
  neighbor 4.4.4.4 send-community extended
 exit-address-family
 !
 address-family ipv4 vrf v
  redistribute eigrp 1
  no synchronization
 exit-address-family
!
ip forward-protocol nd
!

R3, P router:

R3#show run

interface Loopback0
 ip address 3.3.3.3 255.255.255.255
!
interface FastEthernet0/0
 ip address 10.1.34.3 255.255.255.0
 mpls ip
!
interface FastEthernet0/1
 ip address 10.1.23.3 255.255.255.0
 mpls ip
!
router ospf 1
 log-adjacency-changes
 network 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 area 0
!

R4: PE Router

R4#show run
!
ip vrf v
 rd 1:1
 route-target export 1:1
 route-target import 1:1
!
!
interface Loopback0
 ip address 4.4.4.4 255.255.255.255
 ip ospf 1 area 0
!
interface FastEthernet0/0
 ip address 10.1.34.4 255.255.255.0
 ip ospf 1 area 0
 mpls ip
!
interface FastEthernet0/1
 ip vrf forwarding v
 ip address 10.1.45.4 255.255.255.0
!
router eigrp 1
 no auto-summary
 !
 address-family ipv4 vrf v
  redistribute bgp 234 metric 1 1 1 1 1
  network 10.1.45.4 0.0.0.0
  auto-summary
  autonomous-system 1
 exit-address-family
!
router ospf 1
 log-adjacency-changes
!
router bgp 234
 no bgp default ipv4-unicast
 bgp log-neighbor-changes
 neighbor 2.2.2.2 remote-as 234
 neighbor 2.2.2.2 update-source Loopback0
 !
 address-family vpnv4
  neighbor 2.2.2.2 activate
  neighbor 2.2.2.2 send-community extended
 exit-address-family
 !
 address-family ipv4 vrf v
  redistribute eigrp 1
  no synchronization
 exit-address-family

R5: CE Router

R5#show run
!
interface Loopback0
 ip address 5.5.5.5 255.255.255.0
!
interface Serial0/0
 ip address 10.1.215.5 255.255.255.0
 clock rate 64000
!
interface FastEthernet0/1
 ip address 10.1.45.5 255.255.255.0
!
router eigrp 1
 network 0.0.0.0
 no auto-summary
!

Now for a couple show commands on R1:

R1#show ip route eigrp
     5.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
D       5.5.5.0 [90/435200] via 10.1.12.2, 00:19:08, FastEthernet0/0
     10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 3 subnets
D       10.1.45.0 [90/307200] via 10.1.12.2, 00:19:08, FastEthernet0/0
R1#

R1#show ip eigrp topology
IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS(1)/ID(10.1.215.1)

Codes: P - Passive, A - Active, U - Update, Q - Query, R - Reply,
       r - reply Status, s - sia Status

P 1.1.1.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 128256
        via Connected, Loopback0
P 5.5.5.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 435200
        via 10.1.12.2 (435200/409600), FastEthernet0/0
        via 10.1.215.5 (2297856/128256), Serial0/0
P 10.1.12.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 281600
        via Connected, FastEthernet0/0
P 10.1.45.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 307200
        via 10.1.12.2 (307200/281600), FastEthernet0/0
        via 10.1.215.5 (2195456/281600), Serial0/0
P 10.1.215.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 2169856
        via Connected, Serial0/0
R1#

And some on R2, the PE router:

R2#show ip route vrf v

Routing Table: v
Codes: C - connected, S - static, R - RIP, M - mobile, B - BGP
       D - EIGRP, EX - EIGRP external, O - OSPF, IA - OSPF inter area
       N1 - OSPF NSSA external type 1, N2 - OSPF NSSA external type 2
       E1 - OSPF external type 1, E2 - OSPF external type 2
       i - IS-IS, su - IS-IS summary, L1 - IS-IS level-1, L2 - IS-IS level-2
       ia - IS-IS inter area, * - candidate default, U - per-user static route
       o - ODR, P - periodic downloaded static route

Gateway of last resort is not set

     1.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
D       1.1.1.0 [90/409600] via 10.1.12.1, 00:31:48, FastEthernet0/0
     5.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 1 subnets
B       5.5.5.0 [200/409600] via 4.4.4.4, 00:02:34
     10.0.0.0/24 is subnetted, 3 subnets
C       10.1.12.0 is directly connected, FastEthernet0/0
B       10.1.45.0 [200/0] via 4.4.4.4, 00:31:48
D       10.1.215.0 [90/2195456] via 10.1.12.1, 00:31:21, FastEthernet0/0

R2#show ip eigrp vrf v topology
IP-EIGRP Topology Table for AS(1)/ID(10.1.12.2) Routing Table: v

Codes: P - Passive, A - Active, U - Update, Q - Query, R - Reply,
       r - reply Status, s - sia Status

P 1.1.1.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 409600
        via 10.1.12.1 (409600/128256), FastEthernet0/0
P 5.5.5.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 409600
        via VPNv4 Sourced (409600/0)
P 10.1.12.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 281600
        via Connected, FastEthernet0/0
P 10.1.45.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 281600
        via VPNv4 Sourced (281600/0)
P 10.1.215.0/24, 1 successors, FD is 2195456
        via 10.1.12.1 (2195456/2169856), FastEthernet0/0
R2#

Take a minute to post your thoughts, and as always, happy studies.

Keith

It has been a few days, and we have received lots of great ideas.   Thank you.

When R4 receives the routes in VRF v, the EIGRP metrics are copied into extended BGP attributes, and include the information for metric, AS, route-type and more.  The iBGP updates from R4 to R2 contain all those attributes.   When R2 receives the updates, if the route type is internal (from EIGRP attributes) and the source EIGRP AS matches the local EIGRP AS we are importing to, it will then be up to the  metric to determine the best path.

If we decreased the bandwidth statement on R4 Fa0/1, or used an offset list (2,000,000 more should do the trick) on R5 out Fa0/1 (towards R4), the increase in metric would cause R2 to prefer the path through R1 for 5.5.5.0/24 instead of using the MPLS backbone.

BGP updates that contain the cost community attribute will use the EIGRP AD instead of the iBGP AD of 200 to compare routes on metric alone. In that light, another option, would be to tell R2 to ignore cost-community, with the BGP router command:

bgp bestpath cost-community ignore

Let’s take a look at the results.

Here is the baseline for before any changes:

R2#show ip route vrf v | inc 5.5.5
B       5.5.5.0 [200/409600] via 4.4.4.4, 00:02:29
R2#show ip bgp vpnv4 all 5.5.5.0
BGP routing table entry for 1:1:5.5.5.0/24, version 8
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table v)
Flag: 0x820
  Not advertised to any peer
  Local
    4.4.4.4 (metric 21) from 4.4.4.4 (4.4.4.4)
      Origin incomplete, metric 409600, localpref 100, valid, internal, best
      Extended Community: RT:1:1 Cost:pre-bestpath:128:409600 0x8800:32768:0
        0x8801:1:153600 0x8802:65281:256000 0x8803:65281:1500
      mpls labels in/out nolabel/19
R2#

Now we will remove the default behavior

R2(config)#router bgp 234
R2(config-router)#bgp bestpath cost-community ignore

Cleared BGP sessions and routing tables, and waited a minute before the following show commands:

R2#show ip route vrf v | inc 5.5.5
D       5.5.5.0 [90/2323456] via 10.1.12.1, 00:00:08, FastEthernet0/0
R2#show ip bgp vpnv4 all 5.5.5.0
BGP routing table entry for 1:1:5.5.5.0/24, version 8
Paths: (2 available, best #2, table v)
Flag: 0x820
  Advertised to update-groups:
        1
  Local
    4.4.4.4 (metric 21) from 4.4.4.4 (4.4.4.4)
      Origin incomplete, metric 409600, localpref 100, valid, internal
      Extended Community: RT:1:1 Cost:pre-bestpath:128:409600 0x8800:32768:0
        0x8801:1:153600 0x8802:65281:256000 0x8803:65281:1500
      mpls labels in/out 20/19
  Local
    10.1.12.1 from 0.0.0.0 (2.2.2.2)
      Origin incomplete, metric 2323456, localpref 100, weight 32768, valid, sourced, best
      Extended Community: RT:1:1
        Cost:pre-bestpath:128:2323456 (default-2145160191) 0x8800:32768:0
        0x8801:1:665600 0x8802:65282:1657856 0x8803:65281:1500
      mpls labels in/out 20/nolabel
R2#

After setting it back to defaults, we could then try an offset list on R5 advertising to R4:

R5(config)#router eigrp 1
R5(config-router)#offset-list 0 out 2000000 fastEthernet 0/1

Cleared BGP sessions and routing tables, and waited a minute before the following show commands:

R2#show ip route vrf v | inc 5.5.5
D       5.5.5.0 [90/2323456] via 10.1.12.1, 00:06:28, FastEthernet0/0
R2#show ip bgp vpnv4 all 5.5.5.0
BGP routing table entry for 1:1:5.5.5.0/24, version 12
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table v)
Flag: 0x820
  Advertised to update-groups:
        1
  Local
    10.1.12.1 from 0.0.0.0 (2.2.2.2)
      Origin incomplete, metric 2323456, localpref 100, weight 32768, valid, sourced, best
      Extended Community: RT:1:1
        Cost:pre-bestpath:128:2323456 (default-2145160191) 0x8800:32768:0
        0x8801:1:665600 0x8802:65282:1657856 0x8803:65281:1500
      mpls labels in/out 31/nolabel
R2#

After resetting all that, implementing the following on R4, and then clearing BGP and routing, we issue the show commands again.

R4(config)#int fa 0/1
R4(config-if)#bandwidth 100

R2#show ip route vrf v | inc 5.5.5
D       5.5.5.0 [90/2323456] via 10.1.12.1, 00:00:05, FastEthernet0/0
R2#show ip bgp vpnv4 all 5.5.5.0
BGP routing table entry for 1:1:5.5.5.0/24, version 20
Paths: (1 available, best #1, table v)
Flag: 0x820
  Advertised to update-groups:
        1
  Local
    10.1.12.1 from 0.0.0.0 (2.2.2.2)
      Origin incomplete, metric 2323456, localpref 100, weight 32768, valid, sourced, best
      Extended Community: RT:1:1
        Cost:pre-bestpath:128:2323456 (default-2145160191) 0x8800:32768:0
        0x8801:1:665600 0x8802:65282:1657856 0x8803:65281:1500
      mpls labels in/out 23/nolabel
R2#

Thanks again to all who contributed. I encourage all RS candidates to lab this up, as well as practice MPLS with OSPF at the CEs.

Marcel posted a comment, reminding us of an excellent document written by Petr, on this topic and more. The original post from Petr which includes the link to free .PDF for this document may be found by clicking here. Thanks Marcel!

“Why doesn’t this PING work!?!”

Here is a simple 3 router configuration, well at least it is simple on 2 of the 3 routers. R1 and R3 are configured quite traditionally, but R2 is a bit more involved.
Here is the diagram.

Here are the details.

R2 is using a VRF which includes both LAN interfaces. R2 is also acting as a Zone Based Firewall in transparent mode, allowing all ICMP traffic in both directions, as well as SSH from the inside to the outside networks. R2 has a bridged virtual interface in the 10.123.0.0/24 network. All are running OSPF, but pings issued from R2 to the loopbacks of R1 and R3 are failing.

Can you identify why?
Here is the relevant output:

R1#show ip ospf neighbor
Neighbor ID     Pri   State           Dead Time   Address         Interface
3.3.3.3           1   FULL/DR         00:00:39    10.123.0.3      FastEthernet0/0
10.123.0.2        1   FULL/BDR        00:00:32    10.123.0.2      FastEthernet0/0
R1#show ip route ospf
     3.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
O       3.3.3.3 [110/2] via 10.123.0.3, 00:01:33, FastEthernet0/0

R1#ping 3.3.3.3
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 3.3.3.3, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 60/88/172 ms
R1#ssh -l admin 3.3.3.3
Password: <password>

R3#show ssh
Connection Version Mode Encryption  Hmac         State                 Username
0          1.99     IN   aes128-cbc  hmac-sha1    Session started       admin
0          1.99     OUT  aes128-cbc  hmac-sha1    Session started       admin
%No SSHv1 server connections running.
R3#exit

[Connection to 3.3.3.3 closed by foreign host]
R1#

Now for R2:

R2#show ip ospf neighbor
Neighbor ID     Pri   State           Dead Time   Address         Interface
1.1.1.1           1   FULL/DROTHER    00:00:37    10.123.0.1      BVI1
3.3.3.3           1   FULL/DR         00:00:35    10.123.0.3      BVI1

R2#show ip route ospf

R2#show policy-map type inspect zone-pair
 Zone-pair: zp-in-to-out

  Service-policy inspect : p-in-to-out

    Class-map: c-in-to-out (match-any)
      Match: protocol icmp
        4 packets, 320 bytes
        30 second rate 0 bps
      Match: protocol ssh
        3 packets, 72 bytes
        30 second rate 0 bps
      Inspect
        Packet inspection statistics [process switch:fast switch]
        tcp packets: [4:390]
        icmp packets: [0:50]

        Session creations since subsystem startup or last reset 8
        Current session counts (estab/half-open/terminating) [0:0:0]
        Maxever session counts (estab/half-open/terminating) [2:1:1]
        Last session created 00:02:23
        Last statistic reset never
        Last session creation rate 0
        Maxever session creation rate 3
        Last half-open session total 0

    Class-map: class-default (match-any)
      Match: any
      Drop (default action)
        0 packets, 0 bytes
 Zone-pair: zp-out-to-in

  Service-policy inspect : p-out-to-in

    Class-map: c-out-to-in (match-all)
      Match: protocol icmp
      Inspect
        Packet inspection statistics [process switch:fast switch]
        icmp packets: [0:20]

        Session creations since subsystem startup or last reset 2
        Current session counts (estab/half-open/terminating) [0:0:0]
        Maxever session counts (estab/half-open/terminating) [1:1:0]
        Last session created 00:25:24
        Last statistic reset never
        Last session creation rate 0
        Maxever session creation rate 1
        Last half-open session total 0

    Class-map: class-default (match-any)
      Match: any
      Drop (default action)
        4 packets, 96 bytes

R2#ping 3.3.3.3
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 3.3.3.3, timeout is 2 seconds:
.....
Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)

R2# show run
version 12.4
hostname R2
!
ip vrf myvrf
!
class-map type inspect match-any c-in-to-out
 match protocol icmp
 match protocol ssh
class-map type inspect match-all c-out-to-in
 match protocol icmp
!
policy-map type inspect p-in-to-out
 class type inspect c-in-to-out
  inspect
 class class-default
policy-map type inspect p-out-to-in
 class type inspect c-out-to-in
  inspect
 class class-default
!
zone security inside
zone security outside
zone-pair security zp-in-to-out source inside destination outside
 service-policy type inspect p-in-to-out
zone-pair security zp-out-to-in source outside destination inside
 service-policy type inspect p-out-to-in
bridge irb
!
interface FastEthernet0/0
 ip vrf forwarding myvrf
 no ip address
 zone-member security inside
 bridge-group 1
!
interface FastEthernet0/1
 ip vrf forwarding myvrf
 no ip address
 zone-member security outside
 bridge-group 1
!
interface BVI1
 ip vrf forwarding myvrf
 ip address 10.123.0.2 255.255.255.0
!
router ospf 1 vrf myvrf
 router-id 10.123.0.2
 network 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 area 0
!
bridge 1 protocol ieee
bridge 1 route ip
end

Here is R3:

R3#show ip ospf neighbor

Neighbor ID     Pri   State           Dead Time   Address         Interface
1.1.1.1           1   FULL/DROTHER    00:00:32    10.123.0.1      FastEthernet0/1
10.123.0.2        1   FULL/BDR        00:00:31    10.123.0.2      FastEthernet0/1

R3#show ip route ospf
     1.0.0.0/32 is subnetted, 1 subnets
O       1.1.1.1 [110/2] via 10.123.0.1, 00:29:36, FastEthernet0/1

R3#ping 1.1.1.1
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 1.1.1.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 76/117/176 ms
R3#

Similar configuration scenarios are included in both our RS and SC workbooks at INE.

Take a moment, and post your ideas on why the PING from R2 is failing, and thanks for taking the time to assist!

Best wishes, Keith

In the previous MPLS Components post, we discussed the many benefits that MPLS can bring to the network, and we detailed the typical components found in a Layer 3 MPLS VPN design. In this post, we will provide more details for the MPLS components and their important, inner workings. We will make reference to the previous diagram in this post as well:

MPLS Components

When PE1 receives a packet from CE1, it will engage in what we call a Push operation. PE1 is considered the ingress PE router and engages in label imposition. (Notice that we like to speak in fancy terminology here; when we add a label to a packet, it is termed a push or an imposition).

The P routers in the scenario will move the packets by simply swapping labels. How are the labels used in the Label Switch Path (LSP) learned by all of the routers? This is the job of the Label Distribution Protocol, or other existing protocols, but that is for later blog posts.

At the egress PE2 device, we have label disposition, or what we call a Pop of the label. (Fancy language for the removal of the label). If the second to last device in the path removes the label for us, this is termed Penultimate Hop Popping (PHP) and is the default Cisco implementation.

So we have pointed out that our example relies upon the Label Distribution Protocol (LDP) for the assignment of labels through the Label Switch Path (LSP). But how does LDP assign these labels? On what does it base its information?

It turns out that LDP relies upon the underlying IGP to build the best path for the LSP through the network. In fact, it also relies upon the IGP for loop free pathing.

This relationship between LDP and the IGP has many interesting aspects. For example, if the IGP reconverges on a new best path, so will the LSP through LDP. If there is a loop created or a blackhole situation created by the IGP reconvergence, this will also impact the LSP. Also, consider convergence times. LDP is certainly bound by the convergence time of the underlying IGP. Finally, consider the fact that this reliance brings up the need for inter-AS MPLS mechanisms for LDP.

The last point I want to discuss in this part is the fact that we often have label stacking with MPLS. In the case of our Layer 3 MPLS VPNs in the R&S track, the outer label (or transport label), is used to move the packet through the LSP, while the inner label is used to identify the VPN site. This is often called the VPN label.

Well, I certainly hope you are enjoying the posts on MPLS and there will be many more to come.

We know from the 5-Day QoS bootcamp that Differentiated Services is one of the three major overall approaches to providing Quality of Service in an enterprise. The other options are Integrated Services and Best Effort.

When we studied Differentiated Services, we saw that the primary marking technology approach was the Differentiated Services Code Point (DSCP) concept. These are the high order 6 bits in the IP packet ToS Byte. But how can MPLS use these markings in order to provide QoS treatment (Per Hop Behaviors (PHBs)) to various traffic forms?

The first major issue to solve is the fact that Label Switch Routers (LSRs) rely solely on the MPLS header when making forwarding decisions. These devices will no longer analyze the IP Header information, thus negating the use of the ToS Byte. This was solved through the creation of the Experimental Bits field  in the MPLS header. The IETF has now renamed the field to the Traffic Class field.  See RFC 5462.

But now there is another issue. There are 6 bits used for DSCP (providing 64 classifications), while there are only 3 Traffic Class bits (providing a mere 8 classifications).

It turns out there are two approaches to dealing with this issue. If you should happen to require less than 8 Per Hop Behaviours, just use the EXP Bits (Traffic Class). In fact, these bits are mapped to IP Precedence by default in Cisco’s implementation, so they should be populated appropriately for QoS classification by default. This approach is called E-LSPs in official MPLS terminology. E stands for EXP-inferred in this case.

The second option is when we need more than 8 classifications in our network. Obviously, the three EXP bits fall far short of providing the necessary markings. In this case, the label itself is used to help mark traffic! In this approach, both the EXP bits and the label are used for the PHB. Typically the marking in the label will assign the congestion management treatment, while the EXP bits will control drop priority. This approach is called L-LSP. Here the L stands for label-inferred.

Thanks for reading this blog supplement to the QoS course, and you can expect many more over the coming months. Happy studies!

Summer is here and it’s time to get certified!  Join us during the Summer of Success by attending one of our bootcamps and save up-to $1000.  Get $500 off any one week on-site bootcamp or $1000 off any two week on-site bootcamp when you purchase during this limited offer.  This special promotion applies to CCIE Routing & Switching, CCIE Voice, CCIE Service Provider or CCIE Security.

To take advantage of this special promotion, use discount code 1WEEKBOOTCAMP or 2WEEKBOOTCAMP when you check out at http://www.ine.com.

It isn’t my fault, they configured it that way before I got here! That was the entry level technician’s story Monday morning, and he was sticking to it. 

Here is the rest of the story.   Over the weekend, some testing had been done regarding a proposed BGP configuration.   The objective was simple, R1 and R3 needed to ping each others loobacks at 1.1.1.1 and 3.3.3.3 respectively, with those 2 networks, being carried by BGP.  R2 is performing NAT.    The topology diagram looks like this:

The ping between loopbacks didn’t work, but R1 and R3 had these console messages:

R1#
%TCP-6-BADAUTH: No MD5 digest from 10.0.0.3(179) to 10.0.0.1(28556) (RST)
R1#
%TCP-6-BADAUTH: No MD5 digest from 10.0.0.3(179) to 10.0.0.1(28556) (RST)
R1#

R3#
%TCP-6-BADAUTH: No MD5 digest from 23.0.0.1(179) to 23.0.0.3(59922) (RST)
R3#
%TCP-6-BADAUTH: No MD5 digest from 23.0.0.1(179) to 23.0.0.3(59922) (RST)
R3#

The senior engineer looked at the configurations for R1, R2 and R3 and found 5 specific items, each of which was independently causing a failure.

Here is the challenge:  Can you find 1 or more of them?

Let us know what your troubleshooting skills can find, and post your comments here on the blog.

Here are the configurations for the 3 routers:

R1#show run
version 12.4
hostname R1
!
interface Loopback0
 ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
!
interface FastEthernet0/0
 ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0
!
router ospf 1
 network 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
!
router bgp 1
 no synchronization
 bgp log-neighbor-changes
 network 1.1.1.1 mask 255.255.255.255
 neighbor 10.0.0.3 remote-as 3
 neighbor 10.0.0.3 password cisco
 no auto-summary
!
end
R1#

R2#show run
version 12.4
hostname R2
!
interface Loopback0
 ip address 2.2.2.2 255.255.255.0
!
interface FastEthernet0/0
 ip address 10.0.0.2 255.255.255.0
 ip nat inside
 ip virtual-reassembly
!
interface FastEthernet0/1
 ip address 23.0.0.2 255.255.255.0
 ip nat outside
 ip virtual-reassembly
!
router ospf 1
 network 2.2.2.2 0.0.0.0 area 0
 network 10.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 area 0
 network 23.0.0.2 0.0.0.0 area 0
!
ip nat inside source static 10.0.0.1 23.0.0.1
ip nat outside source static 23.0.0.3 10.0.0.3
!
end

R3#show run
version 12.4
hostname R3
!
interface Loopback0
 ip address 3.3.3.3 255.255.255.0
!
interface FastEthernet0/1
 ip address 23.0.0.3 255.255.255.0
!
router ospf 1
 log-adjacency-changes
 network 23.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 area 0
!
router bgp 3
 no synchronization
 bgp log-neighbor-changes
 network 3.3.3.3 mask 255.255.255.255
 neighbor 23.0.0.1 remote-as 1
 neighbor 23.0.0.1 password cisco123
 no auto-summary
!
end
R3#

Let us know what you find!

Best wishes,

Keith

UPDATE:   ANSWERS

Your contributions and input is great.  You ROCK!

I have summarized the 5 specific errors/issues with the configuration, and here they are:

• R2: NAT isn’t fully baked. Can fix with  “ip nat outside source static 23.0.0.3 10.0.0.3 add-route” (or we could manually add the route as well).
• R1 & R3: The BGP passwords don’t match, but it doesn’t matter. BGP authentication doesn’t work between NAT’d BGP neighbors, so it would have to be removed.
• R1 & R3: Incorrect network statements for loopback addresses on both BGP routers (incorrect mask)
• R1 & R3: Ebgp-multihop statements are needed on both neighbors (not directly connected EBGP)
• R2: R2 doesn’t know how to reach 1.1.1.1 or 3.3.3.3 (non-BGP routing issue)

Again, thanks for the time and effort invested in this solution, and in learning in general.   I appreciate you!

Best wishes,

Keith

As you know, purchasers of the new INE 5-day QoS bootcamp receive the class in four different modalities. There is the interactive self-paced version, the live class, the recorded live class, and an audio bootcamp.

If you would like to check out a sample lesson of the audio bootcamp, tune into W-INE Internet radio, or visit the course’s Samples page. The lesson is also going to appear on our iTunes podcast channel by Saturday, May 22, 2010. Just search the iTunes store for INE.

Enjoy, and I look forward to “seeing you” in class soon.