I can't check right now but what are the defaults for ISIS hello
padding on ME3600x?

kind regards
Pshem

On 15 November 2013 06:39, Jason Lixfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I got an answer on this and thought I'd share.  It bit me in the ass and I'd 
> hate for it to bite anyone else.
>
> The root cause was due to a fix implemented in 15.3(3)S1a for CSCtl54835.  
> Essentially, the CLNS mtu is now properly calculated from the L3 interface 
> MTU whereas before, the CLNS MTU was always 1497 no matter what the L3 
> interface MTU was set to.  This fix was not listed in the list of resolved 
> caveats for that release, but it is now.
>
> So,
>
> After the upgrade, the CLNS MTU was calculated to be 9213 (based on a L3 
> interface MTU of 9216) which caused an incompatibility with it's adjacent 9K 
> which has a CLNS MTU of 9202 (based on a L3 interface MTU of 9216).
>
> The fix was to lower the L3 MTU on the ME3600 to 9202 (which is the correct 
> MTU anyway when the A9K MTU is 9216).  This lowered the ME3600 CLNS MTU to 
> 9199 at which point ISIS/BFD was again operational.
>
> I haven't read the CLNS or ISIS RFC, so I don't understand what the expected 
> behaviour is terms of CLNS MTU, but my findings are as follows:
>
> Pre-15.3(3)S1a upgrade:
> ME3600 interface MTU: 9216
> ME3600 inherited CLNS MTU: 1497
> ASR9K interface MTU: 9216
> ASR9K inherited CLNS MTU: 9202
>
> ME3600 CLNS MTU < ASR9K CLNS MTU
>
> Result: ISIS/BFD Up
> --
> Post-15.3(3)S1a upgrade (no config change):
>
> ME3600 interface MTU: 9216
> ME3600 inherited CLNS MTU: 9213
> ASR9K interface MTU: 9216
> ASR9K inherited CLNS MTU: 9202
>
> ME3600 CLNS MTU > ASR9K CLNS MTU
>
> Result: ISIS/BFD Down
> --
> Post-15.3(3)S1a upgrade (config changed):
>
> ME3600 interface MTU: 9202
> ME3600 inherited CLNS MTU: 9199
> ASR9K interface MTU: 9216
> ASR9K inherited CLNS MTU: 9202
>
> ME3600 CLNS MTU < ASR9K CLNS MTU
>
> Result: ISIS/BFD Up
>
> I have heard that it is the understanding of other people (who have 
> presumably read the RFC) that this configuration should still not work 
> because the CLNS MTU always needs to match on both ends.  So it seems that 
> there might be another issue afoot here?  To me, it seems that the A9K cannot 
> negotiate an ISIS adjacency when a neighbour CLNS MTU is larger than itself, 
> but the ME3600 can, but if the CLNS MTU is supposed to match always, then 
> both devices are actually misbehaving?
>
> On Nov 12, 2013, at 9:57 AM, Jason Lixfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Before an upgrade to 15.3(3)S1a, a BFD session between a 9K and an ME3600 
>> worked just fine.  After the upgrade, BFD session wouldn't come up.  I 
>> looked at the release notes and couldn't see any notes about behaviour 
>> changes in BFD or any specific caveats.  BFD still works fine if the 
>> adjacent device is another ME3600 (only tested adjacent ME3600s that were 
>> *not* upgraded to 15.3(3)S1a).
>>
>> I've got Cisco looking at it, but I'm just curious if anyone else has seen 
>> this change in behaviour.  Previously, this ME3600 was running 15.3(3)S and 
>> it worked just fine to this same 9K (which is running XR 4.3.1).
>>
>> ! A9K
>> !
>> router isis
>> is-type level-2-only
>> net 00.0720.1504.8009.0000.00
>> nsf cisco
>> log adjacency changes
>> log pdu drops
>> address-family ipv4 unicast
>>  metric-style transition
>> !
>> interface TenGigE0/0/0/6
>>  bfd minimum-interval 300
>>  bfd multiplier 3
>>  bfd fast-detect ipv4
>>  link-down fast-detect
>>  address-family ipv4 unicast
>> !
>>
>> ! ME3600
>> !
>> interface TenGigabitEthernet0/1
>> no switchport
>> dampening
>> mtu 9216
>> ip address 72.15.51.45 255.255.255.254
>> ip router isis 21949
>> logging event link-status
>> carrier-delay msec 0
>> mpls ip
>> bfd interval 300 min_rx 300 multiplier 3
>> isis bfd
>> !
>> router isis 21949
>> net 00.0720.1505.0138.0000.00
>> is-type level-2-only
>> metric-style transition
>> spf-interval 5 1 50
>> prc-interval 5 1 50
>> lsp-gen-interval 5 1 50
>> bfd all-interfaces
>> !
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  [email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

Reply via email to