Loop in MPLS

Hi,
Here is the standard MPLS network with vrf INTERNET:
PE2--P2--P1--PE1--INTERNET
|
CPE
PE1-routes
ip route vrf INTERNET 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 --> PE1
IP route vrf INTERNET 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 -- > INTERNET
vrf INTERNET 10.10.0.0/16 connected
192.168.0.5 is loopback for MP-BGP
PE2-routes
ip route vrf INTERNET 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 --> PE1
ip route vrf INTERNET 111.111.111.111 255.255.255.255 10.10.0.10
Route on PE2:
ip route vrf INTERNET 111.111.111.111 255.255.255.255 10.10.0.10 is misconfigured because nexthop is from network 10.10.0.0/16 which is directly is connected on PE1, and address 111.111.111.111 is not active
When I start the ping from CPE to 111.111.111.111 route on PE1 sends packet via P1, and P2 to PE2. PE2 has route that recursively points back to PE1. Ofcourse there is LOOP in routing network.
All devices except CPE are Cisco7600
Here are the questions:
1) With only one continuous PING packet-size 1500Bytes from CPE toward address 111.111.111.111 link utilisation P1-P2 goes up to 150Mbps. And with pings from more CPEs link utilisation rises. Why TTL doesn't prevent increasing of link utilisation?
2) CPU on PE2 goes up to 70-80%. Shouln't Cisco 7600 forward packets in hardware? Or maybe recursive lookup is done with CPU?
output from PE2:
Sh ip route vrf INTERNET 111.111.111.111
Routing entry for 111.111.111.111/32
Known via "static", distance 1, metric 0
Redistributing via bgp 65001
Advertised by bgp 65001
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* 10.10.0.10
Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
PE2#sh ip route vrf INTERNET 10.10.0.10
Routing entry for 10.10.0.0/16
Known via "bgp 65001", distance 200, metric 0, type internal
Last update from 192.168.0.5 6d17h ago
Routing Descriptor Blocks:
* 192.168.0.5 (Default-IP-Routing-Table), from 192.168.0.5, 6d17h ago
Route metric is 0, traffic share count is 1
AS Hops 0
Regards,
A

sorry, I made a mistake.
CPE is connected to PE1 like this:
PE2--P2--P1--PE1--INTERNET
|
CPE

Similar Messages

  • Backdoor routes

    We are starting a conversion of a rather large network from atm/frame to mpls. We will be managing the ce routers and talk bgp to the pe routers. Our current network is eigrp. We will have quite a few backdoor links in the network. Some will be backup only and not carry normal traffic, others such as the backdoor links between our data centers will be the primary path between the sites.
    My question is what is the best way to handle the backdoor links. We are looking at:
    1)running bgp on the backdoor links also and ibgp between the routers for the backdoor and the ce router.
    2)running eigrp on the backdoor but under a seperate eigrp as number and redistributing into the primary eigrp as.
    Both have their pros and cons. I was wondering which way other organization have gone and why.

    Hello,
    my 2 cents on the subject.
    I haven´t been involved with a customer in the situation you are. So those are some thoughts on the subject not backed up by experience.
    First, you need mutual redistribution BGP<->EIGRP on all CE routers.
    Second, as EIGRP will always prefer internal routes over external ones, you need another protocol on the backdoor links, which should be really backdoor.
    This said I would first select the links, which really shall be backup to the MPLS network. All other (prefered) links should be running EIGRP with main AS to reduce complexity.
    So lets first look at the "MPLS is backup" scenario. You will have the same networks on the CE learned through EIGRP and eBGP. The latter having AD=20 is prefered, which is undesired in this case. Setting eBGP to AD=150 could fix this. Additionally you need to tag the EIGRP networks learned from BGP with a site specific tag, which would allow to exclude them from redistribution back into BGP once they are announced through EIGRP to another CE.
    Generally a tag should indicate that this network was already passed through the MPLS VPN and thus MUST not be redistributed again.
    Now lets have a look at the "MPLS is primary" scenario. As you already stated you need another routing protocol/EIGRP AS in this case. On the CE this would still work, because external EIGRP with AD=170 is worse than (modified) AD=150 of BGP.
    What remains is again to set proper filters to avoid routing loops most likely again with tags and route-maps for scalability.
    With all this mutual redistribution it is clear, that any mistake in configuration or design of the filters will result in a routing loop.
    The other option would be BGP everywhere. Be aware however, that this will most likely not remove the redistribution and filter complexity.
    What I do not quite understand is, how the physical design looks like, i.e. where you have BGP routers and where EIGRP (main AS). In case you don´t want to black hole yourself, you need to redistribute back into EIGRP in any case, or run an iBGP full mesh on most of your internal routers.
    So in the end you have a lot of complexity in both solutions. Both of them can be implemented. From an operation point of view I would say, that my tendency would be towards EIGRP instead of BGP. But just because your staff might know the latter good enough to operate the whole thing without too much pain.
    Looking from a distance:
    1) Have you pushed the SP hard enough (=$$ ?) to allow EIGRP on the PE-CE link? This would simplify the whole situation.
    2) Have you thought of pushing the SP into OSPF on PE-CE and convert everything to OSPF internally? This would also simplify things. OSPF is better prepared to handle routing loops in MPLS VPNs and also sham links allow for having backdoor links, when required.
    Hope this helps! PLease rate all posts.
    Regards, Martin

  • Layer 1 Loop test over MPLS

    I was asked lately if it is possible to run a layer one loop test on a T1 through an MPLS cloud. My answer was that it does not matter. MPLS is at a different layer. I was told that this is different. When you send a loop code, when testing a T1 with ESF, it is not possible.
    Here we have two sites having point to point connection (Pure layer 1 ) and going through an MPLS cloud.

    Hi,
    OK! I am going to try to be clear about this.
    It is not really an issue. This was a discussion that took place about a two sites (A and B) that are connected in a point-to-point with a T1.
    Now this connection is being moved to an MPLS cloud.
    The tech was asking, in the case he wants to run a loop test at the physical layer. How should he proceed? I told him that he has now two local loops, he needs to test both separately. He replied that he wants to test all the way through the MPLS cloud to reach the remote site. He said that when sending a loop code with ESF, the PE strips the ESF part from the loop code and label only the payload (which is not clear to me).
    Imagine you have a test device connected to the Demarc A and you are testing the link up to Demarc B. Can you run the loop test across the MPLS cloud?

  • IP-Fast Reroute with MPLS remote LFA tunnels

    I have a simple ring network with 4 3600Xs with IP/MPLS 10 gig backbone between all units (with OSPF running in the core).  Per the 3600 design guide I turned on IPFRR under OSPF for fast reroute of traffic around faults.  I have a l3vpn on the 3600s that I'm using to test.  The FRR works quite well when the repair route is a ECMP (equal cost multipath) route, I don't even notice an interruption in ping between l3vpn sites when an 'active' link goes down.
    The issue arises when the repair route is a remote-LFA (loop free alternative) MPLS tunnel.  I've done a few tests, and the failover time when the repair route is a remote LFA tunnel is the same as when FRR isn't turned on at all, it's just the normal route convergence time and there is a significant traffic interruption (as compared to FRR when an ECMP route is the repair route).
    The thing is I'm not quite sure how even to diagnose this.  I was thinking that maybe the remote FLA tunnel was using the link that failed, so it in essence was 'down' as well, hence the traffic interruption as routing fully converged.  But I looked at the remote-LFA interfaces, and as much as I understand them they are taking the right path out of the router anyway (that is, away from the link that would fail in order to activate the remote-LFA route).
    Are there any resources or tips to help troubleshoot why these remote-LFA tunnel repair routes don't seem to be working well?

    Thanks for the reply Nagendra.  When you ask if I've seen the back path installed in RIB/FIB, I'm not exactly sure what you mean.  I do see repair paths referncing remote LFAs on both the 3600 that would be the source and the destination of the test traffic.  Like this:
      * 172.16.0.3, from 10.10.10.3, 01:55:50 ago, via TenGigabitEthernet0/2
          Route metric is 2, traffic share count is 1
          Repair Path: 10.10.10.4, via MPLS-Remote-Lfa40
    and on the other router:
      * 172.16.0.2, from 10.10.10.1, 01:56:34 ago, via TenGigabitEthernet0/1
          Route metric is 2, traffic share count is 1
          Repair Path: 10.10.10.2, via MPLS-Remote-Lfa32
    If you're looking for some specific command output, let me know.

  • MPLS Collapsed PE-CE multihoming

    Hello Netpros,
    Here's the sample scenario:
    - plain MPLS network (MPBGP + OSPF) with VRF VPNs
    - VRF XXX configured say on PE1,PE2,PE3
    - PE1 and PE2 are colocated in the same site: there is a a transit vlan to communicate with a couple of firewalls, mapped to VRF XXX; no CEs, just HSRP/VRRP and static routic redistributed in MPBGP
    How can I force PE3 (remote site) to choose PE1 as best path to reach the Firewalls, for the single VRF XXX ?
    Hope it's clear, thanks a lot
    Andrea

    Hello Andrea,
    you should be able to apply a route-map in the vpnv4 address-family where:
    you check the IP BGP next-hop= PE1 loopback
    and
    you check route-target = that of VRF XXX
    and you set local-preference to 200
    access-list 11 permit host PE1-loop
    ip
    route-map rise-preference permit 10
    match ip next-hop 11
    match route-target extcommunity 12
    set local-preference 200
    ! empty final block to accept all other
    ! vpnv4 routes unchanged
    route-map rise-preference permit 20
    router bgp XX
    address-family vpnv4
    neigh RRS route-map rise-preference in
    this setup should work also with a RRS in the middle unless PE2 is preferred by RRS.
    Use different RDs on PE1 and PE2 to be sure routes of both are propagated in the domain.
    Hope to help
    Giuseppe

  • Routing loop concern

    Hello all,
    We have an MPLS setup with all remote sites connected to site X and site X is directly connected to site Y(datacenter). Note: site Y is not connected to MPLS cloud till now. All the traffic is passing from site X to site Y for accessing servers at datacenter. site X and site Y are connected to each other through Metro E. Now we have new circuit thats being provisioned for site Y(datacenter) that is going to be connected to MPLS cloud directly. We do bgp peering with ISP for MPLS connectivity and Internal routing protocol is Eigrp. We are doing mutual redistribution at each location for propogating routes at each site.  Now the concern is when site Y is connected to MPLS and when I will do the route redistribution on site Y with MetroE connected to site X will there be a routing loop occurance or will there be a best path selection based on the metrics calculated and will choose the optimal path.
    Need suggestions. Thanks in advance.

    Okay no problem, it can be a little daunting when you haven't done it before :-)
    1) No this isn't right.
    When I refer to remote sites I mean sites other than X or Y.
    So you must not allow either X or Y to redistribute any remote site networks into BGP.
    There is no need because the remote site networks should never be advertised from X or Y and if you do allow it it will cause you problems.
    So assuming you want X and Y to back each other up -
    X redistributes it's own subnets from EIGRP into BGP and also Y's but no remote sites.
    Y redistributes it's own subnets from EIGRP into BGP and also X's but again no remote sites.
    If X and Y were not connected via a dedicated link this would not be an issue but because they are and they are exchanging EIGRP routes via that link they each receive EIGRP routes for the remote sites networks from each other as well as from their own MPLS router which is why you need to filter.
    2) You can do the configuration on your CE routers.
    MED or AS prepending are the tools you use.
    So at X you advertise it's own subnets without any modification. You advertise Y's subnets but change one of the above BGP attributes.
    At Y you advertise it's own subnets without any modification and X's subnets you need to modify the BGP attribute again.
    This basically means that traffic will go direct to X or Y as long as their MPLS links are up.
    Either should work although it may be worth having a quick chat with your provider and tell them what you are doing to make sure they are not doing anything that would override your settings.
    Apart from that internally the L3 switches in X and Y should see their own MPLS routers as the best path to all remote sites because from your description the L3 switch is only one hop away from the MPLS router in X and Y whereas to go via the dedicated link would mean more hops.
    I'm assuming it means more hops.
    Quick way to check is do a traceroute from  X L3 switch to it's MPLS router and then a traceroute from X L3 switch to Y MPLS router and hopefully there should be more hops going to Y.
    Do the same from the Y L3 switch.
    If it is the same number of hops then you may have to modify the EIGRP metrics.
    All of the above about redistribution only applies to EIGRP to BGP.
    There is nothing to do about the BGP to EIGRP redistribution.
    Concentrate on the redistribution issue because that could seriously affect your network in terms of it working properly.
    Regarding the second issue have a chat with your provider about the MED and AS prepending just to clear it with them.
    It's not a given that traffic would go in the wrong site, it might, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if you got it wrong temporarily because traffic is doing exactly that to and from the DC at the moment ie. it goes into X and across to Y.
    By all means come back if you need more help but like I say focus on the redistribution issue because that really does need addressing.
    Jon

  • [asr9k] cgn/mpls

    Hi, Community:
    I've been trying to find the best solution for the following problem.
    As I understand it, for me to send IP traffic to an ISM or VSM on an ASR9k for CGN(ex: NAT44), the solution would be to use ABF and configure the ISM/VSM as next-hop for pre-NAT outgoing traffic. My question is this: ABF deployment guide says that ABF does not support mpls-labeled traffic, in other words if an IP-packet I want to NAT comes in labeled, ABF would not be able to catch it an redirect it to VSM so it would be NATed. Can anybody share a posible (best) solution to this scenario?
    Thanks,
    c.

    Thanks for your answer, nifevrie .
    That's exactly the point, in my environment my PE (in this case a CMTS running mpls for l3vpn) has to have labels for L3VPN setup. This PE also has Internet access service. It connects to 2 ASR9000 P routers, that are the correct place for me to install an ISM or a VSM. So basically, the originating router would 'have to do PHP'. 
    So basically, for me to get to the CGN card, as far as I can tell, my 'only' option is the loop. I saw this being described in a CiscoLive presentation. Let's forget for a moment that is not an elegant solution, we're talking 10-20G of traffic here per POP. I cannot fathom telling my customer they have to invest in the CGN card AND 2-4 10G interfaces per loop, per ASR.
    Seems to me it makes sense to work on ABF being able to catch mpls labels.
    Regards,
    c.

  • GRE over MPLS

    Hello people,
    im facing  problem trying to establish a GRE tunnel over  mpls. The topology goes as follows:
    (server) ----CE1(6500)-----PE1(6500)----vrf cloud-----CE2(6500)--FW
    -server needs to establish a gre tunnel with FW.
    -server receives a default route from CE1 via OSPF.
    -CE1 has an default static route pointing to the next hop which is an interface VLAN (in a vrf)  on PE1.
    - PE1 receives a default route generated by CE2 (via mpbgp).
    In this situation the GRE tunnel wouldnt come up.The only way i got the GRE to work was replacing the default static route on CE1 with a more specific static route.
    On both cases (default AND specific static routes) the connectivity(ping)  from end to end was there.
    Has anybody seen anything alike?
    thanks,
    Bruno

    You could be looking at some recursive routing throug the GRE interface, so the second it comes up it will try to put the GRE packets through the GRE tunnel, this creating a loop. Are you using a dynamic routing protocol to get network info over the GRE tunnel or a static route if so, how is it setup ?

  • Venturing into MPLS Network

    Hi all, it is just my curiousity that ended up with a small discussion like this. Here's about it...
    My company has a main client which have tonnes of remote sites connecting to both their HQ and Disaster Recovery Centre. Some of the remote sites still running on frame-relay, while other is purely leased-line. There's a few question I wish I can clear up as follows:
    i. When the client have frame-relay device, what we do is create a tunnel and route all the frame-relay traffic over. Is there any advantage if we change it over to MPLS?
    ii. Even if comparing to leased-line services, what kind of advantages I can expect if our cliet migrate over to leased-line?
    iii. If one customer is running purely on frame-relay connectivity, any difficulties will arise when they want to switch over to MPLS network?
    I still never has any hands on experience on the MPLS, that's why need to gather some info in the first place, I'm currently have a glance through those MPLS guides and configuration examples, but I knew that perhaps in real-life network, things may differs, in the meanwhile I'm studying through it, hope to gather some precious opinions. Regards

    Hello,
    Regarding answer iii: What you have to use inside the MPLS cloud is MBGP to route the customer prefixes. In your LAN however you will have an IGP like EIGRP. This means you need mutual redistribution between MBGP and your IGP. So a routing loop can occur once you have at least two pathes. An Example:
    N1-CE1 - PE1 - PE2 - CE2
    with: CE1 - PE1 using RIP, CE2 - PE2 using RIP, PE1 - PE2 using MBGP and a FR PVC between CE1 - CE2 using RIP
    This would be the case when you migrate from FR to MPLS VPN and do not shut down FR the very moment you activate the MPLS links.
    What can happen in this scenario is: CE1 is announcing Network N1 through RIP to CE2 directly over the FR PVC and also to PE1. PE1 will redistribute N1 into MBGP, send the prefix to PE2, which will redistribute N1 into RIP and send the update to CE2.
    Now depending on implementation and metrics this will result in all traffic flowing over FR or MPLS (when adjusting metrics). No major problem yet.
    The problem might occur once CE1 looses network N1. It will send an update directly to CE2 and to PE1 and a race condition exists. CE2 will still have one valid path to N1 learned from PE2 and announce this one to CE1, which will announce it to PE1 and then PE2, CE2, CE1 again and so on.
    This is an intermittend or even persistent routing loop, depending on what you have done with hop count during redistribution.
    By designing your overall routing solution carefully you can avoid this scenario.
    Hope this helps! Please rate all posts.
    Regards, Martin

  • Citrix over an MPLS

    We are running Citrix over our MPLS, is there any way to accelerate ICA?  I was told the only way to do this is using SSL over a WAN..  No acceleration over an mpls? 

    Dan,
    If the Citrix flows can be redirected before being label switched in MPLS then WAAS can accelerate.  Morever, to Chris's point, the WAE can decrypt an SSL based Citrix flow, accelerate, reencrypt and send it back on the wire to the Core WAE, then on to Citrix head end.
    Do you have the option of transparently redirecting (wccp) the Citrix traffic prior to entering the MPLS cloud?
    Another consideration if you can redirect the traffic via wccp prior to entering MPLS cloud, is if you have ECMP routing with dual mpls links and dual PE routers - Make sure you can leverge wccp negotiated return to avoid redirect loops..

  • BGP Redistribute-internal and MPLS

    Hi, usually when redistributing from BGP into IGP only EBGP routes are redistributed unless the bgp redistribute-internal command is configured which allows the redistribution of IBGP routes. However when doing the same redistribution on a PE router for a IGP running with the CE it seems that this command is not needed and IBGP routes still get redistributed into the IGP. It works without this command. Does anyone know why this is the case?
    I have been trying to understand this for some time now and it seems very trivial however its been bugging me and was hoping someone could clarify. Thx

    Hi Vikram,
    Well, look at it this way, in the case of MPLS VPN, BGP between the PEs (address-family ipv4 vrf x) is used to transport the customer routes between CEs, and thus it is very logical that it should redistribute all kind of routes (in the case of MPLS VPN the customer routes are always going to be iBGP anyway since they are redistributed from IGP (PE-CE) on another PE - except on the local router when the customer is using BGP as the PE-CE routing protocol) - using another prospective, redistributing iBGP routes into IGPs may cause routing loops to form within an autonomous system, but in the case of PE-CE the redistribution is done into a routing protocol outside the BGP domain (customer side).
    I hope that i've been informative.
    BR,
    Mohammed Mahmoud.

  • Loop Avoidance

    Distance vector uses split horizon and route poisoning for loop avoidance. What techniques are used in MPLS for loop avoidance?
    Thanks,
    John

    Just like TTL in the IP header, MPLS header also has a 1-byte TTL
    When an IP packet is first labelled, the (IP TTL -1) is copied to the MPLS TTL
    When the label is removed, the MPLS TTL value of removed label is copied to the either MPLS TTL of inner label or IP TTL field (if no inner label), provided
    MPLS TTL < IP TTL
    And then, IP TTL is decremented
    HTH

  • BRAS Config for MPLS carrying PPPoE

           Hi all
    DSLAM----(PPPoE)---7600----(Xconnect)----7600----(VLAN/PPPoE)---(BRAS ASR1K)
    we currently have a distributed access network where the DSLAMs send us PPPoE packets which we are wrapping into xconnects back to a central BRAS.
    the xconnects terminate on the upstream device to the BRAS.  The BRAS is connected by a VLAN trunk and each DSLAM is identified by a unique VLAN-ID.
    so the BRAS gets native PPPoE frames.
    I wish to extend the MPLS to the BRAS itself.   So that the xconnect ( or VPLS ) terminates on the BRAS itself.
    I cant see how to stitch in the PPPoE features to get this to work.
    I was thinking about an external looping cable on the same BRAS device but thats a bit crap
    Is there a more elegant solution?
    many thanks

    Hi,
    You can try pseudowire headend configuration. But I am not sure its avaliable for AS1K.
    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/routers/crs/software/crs_r4.1/lxvpn/configuration/guide/vc41vpls.html#wp1323446

  • MPLS IP-VPN compatibility

    Hi, we've lots of members running on 2 Cisco 2611 with HA configured (HSRP, ISDN backup, etc). There is 2 scenarios here as follow:
    i. 2 units of 2611 routers with each 2611 have a dedicated LL, one connected to HQ, the other connected to DR.
    ii. 2 units of 2611 routers with only one have a dedicated LL, the other provide ISDN DDR when the LL on the other failed.
    iii. 1 unit of 2611 routers with trunking to a 2950 switch, have a dedicated LL and ISDN DDR.
    For the first scenario, when the members having 2 dedicated LL, normally it is from different telco providers. Now there's one single telco offering us the chance to upgrade to MPLS IP-VPN for an interesting rate. What I'm wondering is, can it work that way?
    I have my 6509s with Sup720 at both HQ and DR, I have a good vendor all the while, if part of the members start to accept the MPLS-VPN, is there any integration problem? The HA configured will still work?
    The thing that worried me most is the core layer part, since the member get the router through a router distribution from the core router in EIGRP, and the ISDN DDR will redistribute the static when the ISDN is active. How MPLS fit into my network?

    Hello,
    In principle everything can work. The dessign in question has one leased line (or ISDN) to the HQ and another path through a MPLS VPN. The issue you will have to deal with is to carefully design your dynamic routing. In case you have EIGRP, then an internal route will always be prefered over an external route. It is most likely to get external routes through the MPLS VPN - depending on implementation details.
    Thus you might have the problem of proper primary/backup path selection and also with routing loops. The underlying reason for both is the redistribution in MP-BGP at the MPLS PE router.
    You need to get more details on the implementation in the SP network to avoid any pitfalls. EIGRP supports backdoors in an MPLS VPN environment, but the question is, whether your telco does as well.
    So it might work, but careful routing design is a must and involves you and the telco. HA is still possible, ISDN backup is possible as well. Depending on your specific implementation details you might need some route tagging and redistribution filters implemented by yourself or the telco to avoid the aforementioned problems.
    Hope this helps! Please rate all posts.
    Regards, Martin

  • SLB with MPLS VPN, is ti possible ?

    Hi to all, is it possible to configure IOS SLB (on 7200 or 6500 platform) to be able to balance server inside a configured vrf ?
    anyone already tested it ?
    many thanks
    max

    Hi Max,
    the IOS SLB code on the C6k platform is not VRF aware at the moment (can only speak of c6k - never tried c7200). It is 'interface-aware' - which means that you can run IOS SLB on a VRF-lite box where the client and real-server facing interfaces are both in the same VRF.
    However IOS SLB currently does not support incoming packets with MPLS labels since the corresponding TCAM filter only matches on pure IP packets - so no support on PE boxes :-(
    To make it work on a PE we did some nasty workaround:
    Loop back a port on the c6k PE and configure the both ends with different VRFs. Route between them and you have a VRF-lite box 'behind' a PE in the same chassis. Not too straight forward though but works as an interim solution ;-)
    hth
    cheers,
    Stefan

Maybe you are looking for

  • PERFORMANCE of this REPORT object

    Hi Experts I have a REPORT object, having a few SELECT Queries in it. I need to analyze the PERFORMANCE of this REPORT object. How can I analyze the performance of a SELECT Query alone in it - that is time taken to execute this SELECT Query alone? Ho

  • Unable to View By Infocubes at Report Level

    Hi experts, could you please any one sort out this problem. IN SAP BI - BUSINESS CONTENT Unable to View By Infocubes at Report Level" Regards, Subhash.

  • ABAP/4 processor: SAPSQL_ARRAY_INSERT_DUPREC

    Transaction: VL01N Error is :  Express Document update was terminated  Please Suggest Please find the ABAP Dump bellow : Short text                                                                                                                       

  • TS1398 How can I retrieve my home wi-fi network password ?

    I cannot sign in to my home wifi network without my password which i have forgotten... any way I can retrieve it?

  • Drop Down Pop Up Menu

    hey. i am making a website. my website has two frames, a top and a bottom main frame. i made a drop down pop up menu and it wont go over the bttom main frame so part of it is hidden. what can i do to make it go over the main frame?