We first suspected this as well. We added the Link Local address and didn't see a change. We also tried creating an import policy for RIPng, no luck here either.
It's very odd. What we're doing is very simple... I was hoping it was just my ignorance on how to configure XORP. I don't think it's a v6 multicast issue since XORP is seeing the packets and announcing routes successfully (though that default metric of 0 is rather irritating). Is anyone else successfully talking to a Cisco box using RIPng (or any other non-XORP box)? I think the next option is on a source level to perhaps make error messages more useful than "packet discarded". Ray -----Original Message----- From: Pavlin Radoslavov [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:23 AM To: Soucy, Ray Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Xorp-hackers] RIPng not Accepting routes from Cisco box. [A copy of an reply I just sent to xorp-users] I am not sure this will solve the problem, but you might try to explictly add the link-local address to the corresponding ripng/interface/vif and interfaces/interface/vif blocks. Pavlin Soucy, Ray <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been trying to get RIPng working on a XORP 1.6 box. > > From what I can see the XORP box is rejecting routes received by a Cisco > box running RIPng. > > I verified that the Cisco router is announcing IPv6 routes through > RIPng, but on the XORP side when I do a trace I get: > > [ 2009/03/10 11:16:17 TRACE xorp_ripng RIP ] Packet on > 00000000-49b67bfe-000cb2c3-42150000 from interface eth0 vif eth0 > fe80::219:7ff:fea8:4280/521 604 bytes > [ 2009/03/10 11:16:17 TRACE xorp_ripng RIP ] Discarding packet > fe80::219:7ff:fea8:4280/521 604 bytes > > I'm not sure why it would be discarding the packet, can anyone shed some > light on what would cause a RIPng packet to be discarded? > > Also, on the Cisco side, I can get the route advertisements from XORP, > so routing is working in one direction (by the way, routes were going > out with a metic of 0 so they were being rejected by default, until I > set a policy to bump the metric to 1). > > Here is debugging from the Cisco side: > > Mar 10 11:06:12: RIPng: Sending multicast update on GigabitEthernet3/12 > for v6rip > Mar 10 11:06:12: src=FE80::219:7FF:FEA8:4280 > Mar 10 11:06:12: dst=FF02::9 (GigabitEthernet3/12) > Mar 10 11:06:12: sport=521, dport=521, length=612 > Mar 10 11:06:12: command=2, version=1, mbz=0, #rte=30 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=1, prefix=2610:48::28/126 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=1, prefix=2610:48:402::8/126 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=1, prefix=2610:48:402::4/126 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=2, prefix=2610:48::24/126 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=2, prefix=2610:48::2C/126 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=2, prefix=2610:48:0:800::1/128 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=3, prefix=2610:48:100:800::/54 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=3, prefix=2610:48::34/126 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=4, prefix=2610:48:200:800::/64 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=4, prefix=2610:48:200:801::/64 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=4, prefix=2610:48:200:802::/64 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=4, prefix=2610:48:200:803::/64 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=4, prefix=2610:48:200:804::/64 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=4, prefix=2610:48:200:805::/64 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=2, prefix=2610:48::C/126 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=3, prefix=2610:48::30/126 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=4, prefix=2610:48:0:1000::1/128 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=3, prefix=2610:48::10/126 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=4, prefix=2610:48::8/126 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=4, prefix=2610:48::18/126 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=4, prefix=2610:48:100:1C00::/54 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=120, metric=4, prefix=2610:48::14/126 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=120, metric=4, prefix=2610:48:0:C00::1/128 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=120, metric=4, prefix=2610:48:0:400::1/128 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=120, metric=4, prefix=2610:48::4/126 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=120, metric=4, prefix=2610:48::20/126 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=120, metric=4, prefix=2610:48:1::4/126 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=120, metric=4, prefix=2610:48:100:400::/54 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=120, metric=4, prefix=::/0 > Mar 10 11:06:12: tag=0, metric=4, prefix=2610:48::38/126 > > I have no import policy set (only export). Essentially the > configuration is identical to a working RIP configuration. > > RIPng configuration: > > interface eth0 { > vif eth0 { > address 2610:48:402::6 { > advertise-default-route: false > } > } > } > export: "RIPng-export" > > RIPng-export policy: > > term 100 { > from { > protocol: "connected" > network6-list: "RIPng-export" > } > then { > metric: 1 > } > } > > RIPng-export list: > > network 2610:48:402:1::/64 > > Interface eth0: > > description: "WAN" > vif eth0 { > address 169.244.10.50 { > prefix-length: 30 > } > address 2610:48:402::6 { > prefix-length: 126 > } > } > > Interface eth1: > > description: "LAN" > vif eth1 { > address 169.244.81.225 { > prefix-length: 27 > } > address 2610:48:402:1::1 { > prefix-length: 64 > } > } > > Do I need an import policy for RIPng? > > Ray Soucy > Communications Specialist > > +1 (207) 561-3526 > > Communications and Network Services > > University of Maine System > http://www.maine.edu/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xorp-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers _______________________________________________ Xorp-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
