[j-nsp] EX4550 apparently dropping IPv6 RA

[Morgan McLean]

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 <jneiberger at gmail.com>
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 <b.plessis at doyousoft.com>
> 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 <p.mayers at imperial.ac.uk>
> > > 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 juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>