[Xorp-hackers] RIPng not Accepting routes from Cisco box.
Soucy, Ray
rays at maine.edu
Sun Mar 15 17:59:04 PDT 2009
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:pavlin at ICSI.Berkeley.EDU]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 3:23 AM
To: Soucy, Ray
Cc: xorp-hackers at icir.org
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 <rays at maine.edu> 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
> Xorp-hackers at icir.org
> http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
More information about the Xorp-hackers
mailing list