If I had a dollar for every time the systems guys changed something and then cried to neteng... :)
Thanks, Morgan On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:11 AM, John Neiberger <[email protected]> wrote: > This all turned out to be a false alarm. Someone on the server team had > changed the configuration on all the servers such that they were ignoring > RAs from the MX960. Everyone thought the EX4550 wasn't passing the RAs > because the filter they used to catch them wasn't apparently catching them. > The counters for ND/NS were incrementing but the counters for RA/RS were > not. The RAs clearly are passing through the EX4550, but for whatever > reason, the filter isn't counting them. The server issue has been corrected > and everything is working now. > > Thanks, > John > > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Benoit Plessis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > It won't help you i fear but i did see exactly the same defect on some > > other concurrent platform (cisco 3560G). > > > > With the latest IOS software (15.x) a 3560G unit in L3 mode does > > correctly send RA and reply to RS, but the same > > unit in L2 mode between a router and a server fail to deliver RA/RS > > messages ... > > "Normal" IPv6 trafic correctly flow thru the 3560G in L2 however. > > > > Downgrading the L2 unit to a 12.xx release did solve the problem, and > > also did replacing the 3560G > > by a 2960G even in IOS 15. > > > > Looks like some packet handling code isn't correctly de-activated. > > > > > > Le 16/06/2014 07:23, John Neiberger a écrit : > > > This does seem to be specific to RA/RS. I haven't been involved in > > > troubleshooting over the weekend but the updates I read said that they > > took > > > some packet captures of RA messages from the Cisco 7600 that the switch > > > used to be connected to and compared them with captures taken from the > > > MX960. They found some differences and adjusted to the configuration to > > > make them the same, but that still did not resolve the problem. The > issue > > > has been escalated with Juniper. Last I read, no one really has any > idea > > > yet what is going on. They've got an action plan for tomorrow, so I'll > > know > > > more after a meeting in the morning. Sure seems awfully funky, though. > > JTAC > > > seems to be at a loss to explain what is happening. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > John > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Phil Mayers <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> On 14/06/14 22:24, John Neiberger wrote: > > >> > > >> The EX4550 is just layer two. There is no routing configured on it, > so > > it > > >>> should just be passing the RAs from the router to the hosts on the > > second > > >>> switch, but that doesn't seem to be happening. > > >>> > > >> Is it RA/RS specific, or is forwarding to fe80::1 and related groups > > >> broken? > > >> > > >> > > >> Have any of you ever seen anything quite like this? > > >> On other platforms, I've seen IPv6 link-local multicast fail to flow > as > > >> some tiny table, sized with IPv4 assumptions, overflowed. > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > > > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
