[c-nsp] VPLS between ME3600X and Brocade XMR

[Darren O'Connor]

Hi all.

I've tried a number of things and the problem still exists.

I've tried moving the L3 config off an SVI directly on the point to point interface:
interface GigabitEthernet0/22
 description MPLS INTERFACE
 no switchport
 mtu 3200
 ip address 192.168.31.23 255.255.255.254
 ip ospf network point-to-point
 ip ospf 1 area 0
 mpls traffic-eng tunnels
end

I've tried creating an L3VPN link to the Brocade PE

I've tried enabling LDP over the TE tunnel.


All of the above give me the same error:
ME3600X#sh mpls l2transport vc detail
Local interface: VFI DARREN-TESTING vfi up
  Interworking type is Ethernet
  Destination address: 192.168.224.61, VC ID: 3200, VC status: down
    Last error: MPLS dataplane reported a fault to the nexthop


The LSP itself is up on both sides. The Brocade also assumes that the VPLS to the ME3600X is up:
SSH at par2.lem1#sh mpls vpls id 3200 | include 192.168.224.1
 Peer address: 192.168.224.1, State: Operational, Uptime: 3 min


LSPs from the ME3600X side:

ME3600X#sh mpls traffic-eng tunnels  brief
Signalling Summary:
    LSP Tunnels Process:            running
    Passive LSP Listener:           running
    RSVP Process:                   running
    Forwarding:                     enabled
    Periodic reoptimization:        every 3600 seconds, next in 3436 seconds
    Periodic FRR Promotion:         Not Running
    Periodic auto-bw collection:    every 300 seconds, next in 137 seconds

P2P TUNNELS/LSPs:
TUNNEL NAME                      DESTINATION      UP IF     DOWN IF   STATE/PROT
par2.lem1                        192.168.224.61   -         Gi0/22    up/up
TO-ME3600X                       192.168.224.1    Gi0/22    -         up/up


LSP ping works over both from both sides. I really don't know what I'm missing here

> From: adam.vitkovsky at swan.sk
> To: darrenoc at outlook.com; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] VPLS between ME3600X and Brocade XMR
> Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 10:31:05 +0200
> 
> Hi Darren,
> Maybe it has something to do with the te-tunnel. 
> Do you get the same error without the te-tunnel? Or when you enable 'mpls
> ip' on the te-tunnel please? 
> Is there a tunnel in the opposite direction as well? 
> 
> adam
>