Sw_if_index 6 is the mpls tunnel0 and sw_if_index 3 is the GigabitEthernet5/0/0 on which I have set interface tag-rewrite push dot1ad 12 .... (both of them are attached to bridge1)
Gigabitethernet5/0/0 is the PE's interface toward customer, meaning that I guess if it does not drop the packet, VPLS will work. The packet is sent to the interface attached to bridge (gigabitethernet5/0/0) by mupls tunnel0. But then the packet drops. On Friday, May 25, 2018, John Lo (loj) <l...@cisco.com> wrote: > Hi Mehran, > > > > The packet trace shows drop is cause by l2-output node when the packet is > sent on the interface with sw_if_index 3 where the output tag-rewrite > operation is not expecting packet with a dot1ad tag of 12. What is the > interface with sw_if_index of 3 on that PE? Is this the same interface > where you have tag-rewrite of “push dot1ad 12” applied? > > > > Can you provide the output of “show bridge 1 detail” (assuming bridge > domain ID of 1 is used for bd_index 1, otherwise, substitute with the ID > used) on that PE, please? The output will show all interfaces in the > bridge domain with sw_if_index and tag-rewrite operation configured on each > interface. > > > > Regards, > > John > > > > *From:* vpp-dev@lists.fd.io <vpp-dev@lists.fd.io> *On Behalf Of *Mehran > Memarnejad > *Sent:* Thursday, May 24, 2018 8:12 AM > *To:* vpp-dev@lists.fd.io > *Subject:* [vpp-dev] dot1ad tag > > > > Hi, > > I have configured VPLS in VPP somehow like this link > <https://lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev/message/9112?p=,,,20,0,0,0::Created,,vpls,20,2,0,18122864> > . > > > > In addition to the above configurations, I want to add a second vlan tag > i.e. 802.1ad (QinQ). > > To achieve this, I entered following command in both PEs: > > *"Set interface l2 tag-rewrite GigabitEthernet5/0/0 push dot1ad > 12"* > > > > Tracking what's going on, I found that the first PE adds the QinQ tag > (12), but the second PE will not remove this tag and afterward it goes to > error node with this message: > > *"l2-output: L2 output tag rewrite drops"* > > > > Here is what *show trace *shows in the second PE: > > > > Packet 1 > > 00:31:10:348251: dpdk-input > TenGigabitEthernet4/0/0 rx queue 0 > buffer 0x21b6f: current data 14, length 114, free-list 0, clone-count 0, > totlen-nifb 0, trace 0x0 > ext-hdr-valid > l4-cksum-computed l4-cksum-correct l2-hdr-offset 0 > l3-hdr-offset 14 > PKT MBUF: port 1, nb_segs 1, pkt_len 128 > buf_len 2176, data_len 128, ol_flags 0x180, data_off 128, phys_addr > 0x4ce6dc40 > packet_type 0x1 l2_len 0 l3_len 0 outer_l2_len 0 outer_l3_len 0 > rss 0x0 fdir.hi 0x0 fdir.lo 0x0 > Packet Offload Flags > PKT_RX_IP_CKSUM_GOOD (0x0080) IP cksum of RX pkt. is valid > PKT_RX_L4_CKSUM_GOOD (0x0100) L4 cksum of RX pkt. is valid > Packet Types > RTE_PTYPE_L2_ETHER (0x0001) Ethernet packet > > > > MPLS: 00:25:90:97:fa:10 -> a0:36:9f:23:aa:78 > label 60 exp 0, s 0, ttl 63 > 00:31:10:348260: mpls-input > MPLS: next mpls-lookup[1] label 60 ttl 63 exp 0 > 00:31:10:348265: mpls-lookup > MPLS: next [7], lookup fib index 0, LB index 23 hash 0 label 60 eos 0 > 00:31:10:348268: lookup-mpls-dst > fib-index:0 hdr:[33:64:0:eos] load-balance:21 > 00:31:10:348270: interface-rx-dpo-l2 > sw_if_index:6 > > > > > > > > > *00:31:10:348272: l2-input l2-input: sw_if_index 6 dst 30:85:a9:f2:23:12 > src 3c:07:71:5f:2d:f5 00:31:10:348275: l2-learn l2-learn: sw_if_index 6 > dst 30:85:a9:f2:23:12 src 3c:07:71:5f:2d:f5 bd_index 1 00:31:10:348277: > l2-fwd l2-fwd: sw_if_index 6 dst 30:85:a9:f2:23:12 src > 3c:07:71:5f:2d:f5 bd_index 1* > > > > > *00:31:10:348280: l2-output l2-output: sw_if_index 3 dst > 30:85:a9:f2:23:12 src 3c:07:71:5f:2d:f5 data 88 a8 00 0c 81 00 00 06 08 00 > 45 00* > > > > > *00:31:10:348282: error-drop l2-output: L2 output tag rewrite drops* > > > > Colors: Packet reception , MPLS tag handling, L2 handling, Error > > > > > > If you notice red underlined trace, 802.1ad tag 12 (in hex 0C) and 802.1q > tag 6 (in hex 06) has been added to packet. > > > > > > I inspected the code in /src/vnet/l2/l2_vtr.h * l2_vtr_process()* > function and /src/vnet/l2/l2_input.h *vnet_update_l2_len()* > function, but I couldn't find any problem. > > > > > > MY QUESTION: Is it a bug in code that the 802.1ad tag is not removed?? Or > should I have entered more commands? > > > > Thanks in advance > > >
