[nsp] Traffic issues (ethernet)

Barry Kiesz barry at nvc.net
Wed Jun 2 13:59:24 EDT 2004


I was wondering about that....  Argggg

Barry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Hale [mailto:chris at peaknetworks.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 12:56 PM
> To: 'Barry Kiesz'; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [nsp] Traffic issues (ethernet)
> 
> 
> No, they won't go down at e0.  That's why you segment at L3 - 
> and yes, you'll need to re-IP your subs.
> 
> Chris
> 
> ----------------------------------------------
> Chris Hale
> Peak Networks, Inc.
> http://www.peaknetworks.com
> 800-PEAK-987
> chris at peaknetworks.com
> Motorola ACSP, Alvarion AIR, Certified Orthogon, Redline, 
> Cisco, Terabeam Partners.
> 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry Kiesz [mailto:barry at nvc.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 1:28 PM
> To: 'Chris Hale'; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [nsp] Traffic issues (ethernet)
> 
> I'll recheck my duplex settings..  I believe it's all set for 
> 10/half. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Segmenting on a L3 
> level would require renumbering of the wireless subs, etc..  True?
> 
> I think I'm going to start at L2 and go from there.  My 
> question is... Will the broadcasts that I'm seeing on e0 of 
> the 2501 go down with a L2 segmentation?
> 
> Barry 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Hale [mailto:chris at peaknetworks.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 11:51 AM
> > To: 'Barry Kiesz'; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > Subject: RE: [nsp] Traffic issues (ethernet)
> > 
> > 
> > First - check your duplex settings on your Ethernet ports...
> > looks like you have a ton of collisions and port resets on 
> > these units.
> > 
> > You can start by segmenting the network on a layer 2 basis,
> > but I would say you should also start segmenting it on a 
> > layer 3 basis as well.  Wireless is a wimp when it comes to 
> > broadcasts and other layer 2 issues.
> > 
> > Try to put a layer 3 switch in place of the 100Mb switch, and
> > give each radio it's own layer 3 segment.  That will cut down 
> > on the broadcasts quite a bit, and when you get hit with a 
> > virus, it will only take down one sector, not the entire 
> > network.  Virus + wireless = no network.
> > 
> > Good luck,
> > Chris
> > 
> > ----------------------------------------------
> > Chris Hale
> > Peak Networks, Inc.
> > http://www.peaknetworks.com
> > 800-PEAK-987
> > chris at peaknetworks.com
> > Motorola ACSP, Alvarion AIR, Certified Orthogon, Redline,
> > Cisco, Terabeam Partners.
> > 
> >  
> >  
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> > [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Barry Kiesz
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 12:16 PM
> > To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > Subject: [nsp] Traffic issues (ethernet)
> > 
> > I've been doing a little research on Cisco's site about this,
> > but really haven't found the answer I'm looking for. So I 
> > thought I'd give this group a try since everyone here seems 
> > pretty knowledgeable when it comes to 'real-life' networks.
> > 
> > Background info:
> > My problem is this:  I have a customer who is a wireless ISP
> > (2.4G) and were experiencing some interesting things.  It all 
> > started when I attempted to install another router (Tasman... 
> > Not my decision) and setup MLPPP over a few T1's.  Once I 
> > plugged that router in, certain customers had trouble getting 
> > places, latency shot up, etc..  I traced that and another 
> > issue to a bad NPE300 in my border 7204VXR (My Router). I 
> > replaced my blade and attempted to hook the dual T1's up 
> > again.  Same latency issue.  So I plugged our little 2501 
> > back in.  But now it seems that wasn't the only problem..
> > 
> > What I'm seeing now:
> > When I do a 'sh int e0' on the 2501 I'm getting after 18 hours
> > 
> > Ethernet0 is up, line protocol is up 
> >   Hardware is Lance, address is 0060.7015.91f6 (bia 0060.7015.91f6)
> >   Internet address is 64.68.166.1/24
> >   MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10000 Kbit, DLY 1000 usec,
> >      reliability 255/255, txload 12/255, rxload 6/255
> >   Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set, keepalive set (10 sec)
> >   ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00
> >   Last input 00:00:00, output 00:00:00, output hang never
> >   Last clearing of "show interface" counters 18:02:34
> >   Queueing strategy: fifo
> >   Output queue 0/40, 0 drops; input queue 58/75, 15335 drops
> >   5 minute input rate 265000 bits/sec, 353 packets/sec
> >   5 minute output rate 475000 bits/sec, 108 packets/sec
> >      21146452 packets input, 2189310135 bytes, 0 no buffer
> >      Received 425827 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 15336* throttles
> >      0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort
> >      0 input packets with dribble condition detected
> >      10026909 packets output, 3786075904 bytes, 0 underruns
> >      0 output errors, 130056 collisions, 1 interface resets
> >      0 babbles, 0 late collision, 292668 deferred
> >      0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier
> >      0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out
> > 
> > They also have a small dialup pool using a AS5248.  Here is
> > the e0 output (16 hours):
> > 
> > Ethernet0 is up, line protocol is up 
> >   Hardware is Lance, address is 0010.7b14.4f58 (bia 0010.7b14.4f58)
> >   Internet address is 64.68.183.1/24
> >   MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10000 Kbit, DLY 1000 usec, rely 255/255,
> > load 1/255
> >   Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set, keepalive set (10 sec)
> >   ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00
> >   Last input 00:00:00, output 00:00:00, output hang never
> >   Last clearing of "show interface" counters never
> >   Queueing strategy: fifo
> >   Output queue 0/40, 0 drops; input queue 6/75, 47102 drops
> >   5 minute input rate 73000 bits/sec, 27 packets/sec
> >   5 minute output rate 12000 bits/sec, 17 packets/sec
> >      1727769 packets input, 730101184 bytes, 46719 no buffer
> >      Received 590341 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 47102 throttles
> >      0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort
> >      0 input packets with dribble condition detected
> >      1373974 packets output, 189040619 bytes, 0 underruns
> >      0 output errors, 407 collisions, 94209 interface resets
> >      0 babbles, 0 late collision, 2874 deferred
> >      0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier
> >      0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out
> > 
> > Here's a diagram of how it's setup:
> > 
> > Bridge system (all customers use 2501's GW address)
> > Wireless Radios are 10Mb connections
> > About 200 wireless subscribers
> > 
> > ---------------   ---------------   ---------------  ---------------
> > --------
> > |WirelessRadio|   |Wireless Radio|  |Wireless Radio| 
> |Wireless Radio|
> > |AS5248|
> > ---------------   ---------------   ---------------- ---------------
> > --------
> >       |                  |                 |                |
> > |
> >       |                  |                 |                |
> > |
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > --------
> > |                      100Mb Switch
> > |
> > |-------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > --------
> >                                       |
> >                                       |
> >                                       |
> >                                 ------------------------
> >                                 |NetEnforcer BW Manager|
> >                                 ------------------------
> >                                       |
> >                                       |
> >                                       |
> >                                  -------------
> >                                  |Cisco 2501 |
> >                                  -------------
> > 
> > Possible solution:
> > 
> > Would physically segmenting the network help with this issue
> > (reduce the broadcasts to the 2501 and 5248)? I was thinking 
> > about putting 2 wireless radios per switch, then uplinking to 
> > a 3rd switch which has the 5248 on it. Then uplinking that to 
> > the NetEnforcer, then to the 2501.
> > 
> > 
> > Any help or guidance would be appreciated as this is starting
> > to be an issue and my customer is getting frustrated, as so am I.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Barry
> >  
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco> -nsp
> > archive at 
> > http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 




More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list