> You don't seem to run BCP MLS rate-limiters
No, we don't but sounds like perhaps it would allow us pick up stuff like this sooner ? Apart from added complexity are there any reasons not to ? >IF you have DFC, you also need to give module number for these commands. No DFC it the box. I did try with the module number and it told me to go away (actually it didn't I think the result was just no output). > I would also have been interested in flags of the adjacency. Do you means the flags as shown below (with the "detail" option), or something else ? 7609#sho mls cef adjacency entr 311374 detail Index: 311374 smac: 0013.1abf.2280, dmac: 0012.7fee.ed40 mtu: 1548, vlan: 1099, dindex: 0x0, l3rw_vld: 1 format: MPLS, flags: 0x8418 label0: 0, exp: 0, ovr: 0 label1: 0, exp: 0, ovr: 0 label2: 17, exp: 0, ovr: 0 op: PUSH_LABEL2 packets: 15, bytes: 1844 > run ELAM capture to see what platform claims to be doing to it Possibly next time when it isn't 0700 Sunday morning and I don't have children jumping all over me :) I'm also hoping there isn't a next time before upgrade in 3 days time... Thanks again for your valuable input. regards, Tony. ________________________________ From: Saku Ytti <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, 24 November 2013 7:10 AM Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Bad routes in MPLS On (2013-11-23 12:35 -0800), Tony wrote: > --- At this point my ping started responding, but CEF details look strange. > MTU is set to 1036 and packets/bytes counters are zero !? You don't seem to run BCP MLS rate-limiters :). People who don't miss out lot of fun debugging, as 'minor' misprograms like these are not noticed. What happens here, packet is punted from HW to SW, so SW can generate ICMP message about too large packet. However, SW likely had correct information, so it just forwarded it normally. If you had ran BCP MLS rate-limiters, your MTU-error punts would have been ratelimited to silly low values, and you'd notice packet loss. > --- The pings are still working and now the CEF entry "looks" correct - MTU > is OK and counters are incrementing. The other slightly strange thing is that > when I did it the first time the adjacency entry number changed, but the 2nd > time it didn't (stayed at 311374). IF you have DFC, you also need to give module number for these commands. I would also have been interested in flags of the adjacency. But maybe next time, before fixing it (as MLS CEF looked ok to me), run ELAM capture to see what platform claims to be doing to it. Superman capture is very very easy and useful, with Tycho you'll need some acrobatics to capture the packet you're interested in. -- ++ytti _______________________________________________ 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/
