[nsp] Routing Problem: I am not sure where to begin.

[Jim Devane]

Gert,

Thank you as well for replying. 
Yes, HSRP will not work here, I agree.

I also agree that it *should* work. But dang it, I can't figure out why it
is not...especially since the SONET framing is correct and passing the
correct L1/L2 info between the routers.

(see below taken during an APS forced switch)

I did only check CEF adjacency on the RP itself. In my next window I will
check the CEF adj on the LC itself and see if there is a difference.

But other than something weird in my CEF table I cannot think of why packets
are not going through.


Any ideas? 

Thanks again for your response...

Jim

interface POS8/1
 description working int
 ip address 66.209.x.x 255.255.255.252
 no ip directed-broadcast
 load-interval 30
 no keepalive
 crc 16
 pos ais-shut
 aps group 20
 aps unidirectional
 aps working 1
end

sh aps
POS8/1 APS Group 20: working channel 1 (active)
        PGP timers (from protect): hello time=1; hold time=3
        SONET framing; SONET APS signalling by default
        Protect at 66.209.X.X
        Remote APS configuration: (null)

interface POS8/1
 description protect int
 ip address 66.209.x.x 255.255.255.252
 no ip directed-broadcast
 load-interval 30
 no keepalive
 crc 16
 pos ais-shut
 aps group 20
 aps unidirectional
 aps revert 1
 aps working 1
end

sh aps
POS8/1 APS Group 20: protect channel 0 (inactive)
        unidirectional (provisioned bidirectional), revertive (1 min) 
        PGP timers (default): hello time=1; hold time=3
        state: (Disabled) 
        authentication = (default)
        PGP versions (native/negotiated): 2/2
        SONET framing; SONET APS signalling by default
        Received K1K2: 0x00 0x04
                No Request (Null)
        Transmitted K1K2: 0x00 0x04
                No Request (Null)
        Working channel 1 at 66.209.X.X (Enabled) 
        Remote APS configuration: (null)
        Reflected local configuration: (null)


FORENSIC:

#sh controllers pos8/1
POS8/1
SECTION
  LOF = 6          LOS    = 6                            BIP(B1) = 131811
LINE
  AIS = 6          RDI    = 15         FEBE = 980        BIP(B2) = 456
PATH
  AIS = 24         RDI    = 42         FEBE = 8824       BIP(B3) = 869
  LOP = 0          NEWPTR = 46         PSE  = 4          NSE     = 8

Active Defects: None
Active Alarms:  None
Alarm reporting enabled for: SF SLOS SLOF B1-TCA B2-TCA PLOP B3-TCA 

Framing: SONET
APS
 protect (inactive)
  COAPS = 74         PSBF = 0         
  State: PSBF_state = False
  ais_shut = TRUE
  Rx(K1/K2): 00/04 Tx(K1/K2): 00/04
  Signalling protocol: SONET APS by default

  Rx Synchronization Status S1 = 0x00 
  S1S0 = 00, C2 = CF
  Remote aps status (none); Reflected local aps status (none)
CLOCK RECOVERY
  RDOOL = 0         
  State: RDOOL_state = False
PATH TRACE BUFFER : STABLE 
  Remote hostname : las-core02              
  Remote interface: POS6/0        
  Remote IP addr  : 66.209.X.X   
  Remote Rx(K1/K2): 00/00  Tx(K1/K2): 00/00

BER thresholds:  SF = 10e-3  SD = 10e-6
TCA thresholds:  B1 = 10e-6  B2 = 10e-6  B3 = 10e-6


-----Original Message-----
From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at greenie.muc.de] 
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 1:57 PM
To: Ryburn, Justin
Cc: Jim Devane; Jack.W.Parks at alltel.com; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [nsp] Routing Problem: I am not sure where to begin.

Hi,

On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 04:41:54PM -0500, Ryburn, Justin wrote:
> No, I missed that there were two different routers on the GSR side.  The
> only way I know of to do it in that setup is to do HSRP between the two
> GSRs and peer to the virtual address.  I am not personally a big fan of
> HSRP but in theory that should work.

We're talking APS protection switching.  There is no LAN here that you
could run HSRP on.

As for Jim's orignal question: I've never done POS APS, but I'd think
it *should* work.  If the interface is properly downed when the circuit is
not active, and "up/up" when it's active, I can't see a specific reason
why using the same set of IP addresses shouldn't work.

It certainly would work that way if you have "manual failover" (two serial
interfaces on two neighbouring routers, configured identically, and you
move the WAN line from one to the other).

gert
-- 
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
 
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany
gert at greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025
gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de