[c-nsp] SSO with ISIS NSF (IETF vs Cisco)

[Atif Sid]

Ok. and this was what I exptected but testing shows that when I use IETF
mode and failover it takes ~ 30 sec  + to  repair while in Cisco mode it can
converge in 8 seconds.


Here is a test:

3 routers: cisco 12410/PRP, IOS: 12.0(32)SY3

P1 --> P2 --> P3

* Pinging from p1 to p3 with timout set to 1 sec , all three routers are in
NSF Cisco.
* force a RP failover on P2,

P1#ping
Protocol [ip]:
Target IP address: p3
Repeat count [5]: 10000
Datagram size [100]:
Timeout in seconds [2]: 1
Extended commands [n]:
Sweep range of sizes [n]:
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 10000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to x.x.x.x, timeout is 1 seconds:

Success rate is 99 percent (9992/10000), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/4 ms
P1#







On 1/15/08, Ken Weissner (kweissne) <kweissne at cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I've just joined this list, so didnt have a copy of the original email
> to reply to, which was forwarded by a colleague.
>
> >My observation is that Cisco mode is faster then IETF, in fact IETF
> has as delay as being in RPR+ mode?
> >Is IETF a GR? vs Cisco a SSO?
>
>
>
> There should be no difference in length of outage if both these modes
> are functioning properly.
> IETF is GR mode, ie RFC3847.   "Cisco" mode is a "Non-Stop Routing" mode
> that doesnt require
> interaction with the peer to recover from the processor failure due to
> the transfer of all state information to the standby.
>
> A "RPR+" like delay could be that the peer to the switching over router
> doesnt have helper capability.
>
> Thanks,
> Ken Weissner
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>