could you provide the ACL you used for debug ip packet detail <acl> ?
you should have seen it be picked up.
also please provide the configs of atm 3/0 and atm 3/0.6. finally are
you running CEF or just fast-switching? and what version of code
are you using?
regards
.siva
>
> Hi list, having trouble finding a source of what I believe
> is a broadcast related problem. If I do a "debug atm error"
> I get a ton of:
>
> Dec 29 13:24:58.776 cst: ATM(ATM3/0): Encapsulation error1, link=7,
> host=C7F0B537
> Dec 29 13:24:58.968 cst: ATM(ATM3/0.6) Send:Error in encapsulation, No VC
> for address 0x613DE328
> Dec 29 13:24:58.968 cst: ATM(ATM3/0.6) Send:Error in encapsulation, No VC
> for address 0x613DE328
> Dec 29 13:24:58.968 cst: ATM(ATM3/0): Encapsulation error1, link=7,
> host=C7F0B537
> Dec 29 13:24:59.168 cst: ATM(ATM3/0.6) Send:Error in encapsulation, No VC
> for address 0x613DE328
> Dec 29 13:24:59.168 cst: ATM(ATM3/0.6) Send:Error in encapsulation, No VC
> for address 0x613DE328
> Dec 29 13:24:59.168 cst: ATM(ATM3/0): Encapsulation error1, link=7,
> host=C7F0B537
> Dec 29 13:24:59.368 cst: ATM(ATM3/0.6) Send:Error in encapsulation, No VC
> for address 0x613DE328
> Dec 29 13:24:59.368 cst: ATM(ATM3/0.6) Send:Error in encapsulation, No VC
> for address 0x613DE328
> Dec 29 13:24:59.368 cst: ATM(ATM3/0): Encapsulation error1, link=7,
> host=C7F0B537
> Dec 29 13:24:59.376 cst: ATM(ATM3/0.6) Send:Error in encapsulation, No VC
> for address 0x613DE328
>
> As you can see by the time stamp they are plentiful. Two Cisco
> engineers are stumped. I've tried the recommendations at:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/121/debug_atm_err.html
>
> to no avail. Tried to catch the IP address (0x613DE328 =
> 97.61.227.40) with host and network based filters. Tried
> "debug ip packet [access-list #] but I can't catch anything.
> The filter counters do not increase. If I ping the address
> they increase. Ping fails, the address is defined nowhere
> on our network, not in the routing table, and is a reserved
> address according to ARIN. The CRC's on the physical
> interface increase with the broadcasts IE:
>
> Encapsulation(s): AAL5
> 4096 maximum active VCs, 81 current VCCs
> 0 carrier transitions
> Last clearing of "show interface" counters 00:11:12
> Input queue: 0/75/4392 (size/max/drops); Total output drops: 413
> Queueing strategy: Per VC Queueing
> 5 minute input rate 5040000 bits/sec, 1643 packets/sec
> 5 minute output rate 2337000 bits/sec, 1616 packets/sec
> 1083680 packets input, 411377591 bytes, 0 no buffer
> Received 1776 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles
> 2554 input errors, 2554 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort
> 1069621 packets output, 194037151 bytes, 0 underruns
>
> TELCO says circuit is clean. If I look at the individual VC's there
> are CRC's increasing on only two VC's that are going to the same
> location. All other VC's are very clean.
>
> nwp-7206#sh atm vc 34
> ATM3/0.6: VCD: 34, VPI: 10, VCI: 33
> VBR-NRT, PeakRate: 1500, Average Rate: 500, Burst Cells: 1
> AAL5-LLC/SNAP, etype:0x0, Flags: 0x20, VCmode: 0x0
> OAM frequency: 0 second(s)
> InARP DISABLED
> Transmit priority 2
> InPkts: 60248, OutPkts: 72273, InBytes: 8214927, OutBytes: 34713706
> InPRoc: 193, OutPRoc: 599, Broadcasts: 0
> InFast: 60055, OutFast: 71586, InAS: 0, OutAS: 0
> InPktDrops: 0, OutPktDrops: 0
> CrcErrors: 1869, SarTimeOuts: 0, OverSizedSDUs: 0
> OAM cells received: 0
> OAM cells sent: 0
> Status: UP
> nwp-7206#
> nwp-7206#
> nwp-7206#sh atm vc 36
> ATM3/0.6: VCD: 36, VPI: 10, VCI: 34
> VBR-NRT, PeakRate: 1500, Average Rate: 500, Burst Cells: 1
> AAL5-LLC/SNAP, etype:0x0, Flags: 0x20, VCmode: 0x0
> OAM frequency: 0 second(s)
> InARP DISABLED
> Transmit priority 2
> InPkts: 128997, OutPkts: 110917, InBytes: 16306927, OutBytes: 36009889
> InPRoc: 99, OutPRoc: 473, Broadcasts: 0
> InFast: 128897, OutFast: 110241, InAS: 0, OutAS: 0
> InPktDrops: 0, OutPktDrops: 0
> CrcErrors: 1787, SarTimeOuts: 0, OverSizedSDUs: 0
> OAM cells received: 0
> OAM cells sent: 0
> Status: UP
> nwp-7206#
> nwp-7206#
>
> Any comments would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks, blake
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:24 EDT