[j-nsp] L3 incompletes

[Bit Gossip]

group,
even if I read different opinions on which protocol may cause this
counter to increase, it seems that there is consensus that is NOT
related to layer 1 physical layer; meaning bad patch, dirty fiber,
broken sfp ....... The frame passes at the end layer 2 CRC check.
Thanks,
bit.

On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 21:42 +0530, Lakshminarayanan P wrote:
> > > No, that should result in "policed discards", not "L3 incompletes".
> > > This commonly shows up when the neighbor is from Brand-C and has
> > > cdp enabled.  :)
> Well, I have come across increase in L3 incomplete errors previously when
> testing with a M320 connected back to back on Ethernet to another router. On
> the other end of the interface, I had LDP / OSPF enabled while it was
> disabled on the M320 end of the interface. I did see L3 incompletes increase
> consistently which disappeared once I  disabled LDP / OSPF on the other end
> also.
> 
> If I remember correctly, the other end was connected to a M40e :)
> 
> Cheers
> Lakshmi
> 
> 2008/6/13 Paul Goyette <pgoyette at juniper.net>:
> 
> > > > No, that should result in "policed discards", not "L3 incompletes".
> > > > This commonly shows up when the neighbor is from Brand-C and has
> > > > cdp enabled.  :)
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'm hesitant to attempt to correct anyone with a
> > > "juniper.net" address, but I'm not sure this is entirely
> > > true.  Discarded OSPF packets should show up as layer 3, not
> > > layer 2, so I don't believe policed discards counts in this
> > > situation.  It is correct that CDP/LLDP/VTP/etc. will show up
> > > as policed discards.
> >
> > HeHeHe!  Just cuz I'm from Juniper doesn't mean I'm always right!
> >
> > You are correct, Eric, the OSPF packets would be NEITHER "L3
> > incomplete" nor "Policed discard".
> >
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp