[j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
Scott Morris
swm at emanon.com
Wed Nov 11 21:33:23 EST 2009
I will assume that you mean ethernet headers instead of "TCP headers" ;)
You should be fine with 9014 though as only the header is counted. The
FCS shouldn't be counted in the total length at all.
Scott
Jonathan Call wrote:
> I don't know if this will help because it has to deal with gigabit Ethernet interfaces but...
>
> If you set a Cisco device to use frame size of MTU 9000 it does not count the 18 bytes for TCP headers. However, Juniper does count the 18 bytes when you set the MTU. So if the Cisco interface is set to mtu jumbo 9000, the Juniper end must have an mtu of 9018. This only seems to apply for physical interfaces on Juniper. For logical interfaces on Juniper the MTU remains 9000.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>> From: kszarkowicz at gmail.com
>> To: tima at transtelecom.net
>> Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:36:43 +0100
>> CC: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
>>
>> With MTUs around 9000 configured on ALL links in the network there should be no problem with BGP,
>> since as per RFC4271, section 4:
>>
>> The maximum message size is 4096 octets. All implementations are required to support this maximum
>> message size.
>>
>> So even if MPLS and IP MTUs slightly differ, with sizes around 9000 it doesn't matter from BGP
>> perspective.
>>
>> The only thing that comes in my mind, that there are some L2 switches in between and there is
>> something wrong with MTU on those switches. Worth to check.
>>
>> Could you paste from the log the Notification message generated when the BGP session is tear down?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Krzysztof
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tima Maryin [mailto:tima at transtelecom.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, 11 November, 2009 15:12
>> To: kszarkowicz at gmail.com
>> Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
>>
>> Uhm, i see your point here.
>> We indeed have cisco - cisco - Jun - Jun setup
>>
>>
>> My cisco interface mtu = ip mtu = mpls mtu =9000
>> But i reeeealy doubt that bgp keepalive packet size can come close to that mtu.
>>
>>
>> On Juniper i set interface mtu = cisco mtu +14 and it works fine!
>> And! As you say, it reports different mpls mtu value:
>>
>> > show interfaces xe-1/0/0 | match MTU
>> Link-level type: Ethernet, MTU: 9014, LAN-PHY mode, Speed: 10Gbps, Loopback:
>> None, Source filtering: Disabled,
>> Protocol inet, MTU: 9000
>> Protocol mpls, MTU: 8988
>> Protocol multiservice, MTU: Unlimited
>>
>>
>> As far as i understand "default mpls mtu" term (not sure that i _fully_
>> understand it though) it seems, Juniper supposes 3 labels maximum.
>> I dont see any reasons for device to drop packets which has 1 or 2 labels and
>> bigger than mpls mtu, but still ok from interface mtu point ov view.
>>
>> As per your logic, device should drop all traffic that match such criteria but
>> it seems only bgp session keepalives and i didn't see any other problems
>>
>>
>>
>> But still, i made an experiment on Juniper and cisco which has bgp session
>> between them.
>>
>> cisco:
>> #sh mpls interfaces g 0/0 detail | i MTU
>> MTU = 9000
>> #sh ip int g 0/0 | i MTU
>> MTU is 9000 bytes
>> #sh run int g 0/0
>> Building configuration...
>>
>> Current configuration : 212 bytes
>> !
>> interface GigabitEthernet0/0
>> description --- to 7606-2 ---
>> mtu 9000
>> ip address 10.3.13.2 255.255.255.0
>> load-interval 30
>> duplex full
>> speed 1000
>> media-type gbic
>> no negotiation auto
>> tag-switching ip
>> end
>>
>>
>> If i set mtu 9000 under family mpls and commit it, it looks like this:
>>
>> > show interfaces xe-1/0/0 | match MTU
>> Link-level type: Ethernet, MTU: 9014, LAN-PHY mode, Speed: 10Gbps, Loopback:
>> None, Source filtering: Disabled,
>> Protocol inet, MTU: 9000
>> Protocol mpls, MTU: 9000
>> Flags: Is-Primary, User-MTU
>> Protocol multiservice, MTU: Unlimited
>>
>>
>>
>> and problem still persists
>>
>>
>>
>> please let me know if you have any other ideas :)
>>
>>
>>
>> p.s. Its the same effect if i set tag-sw mtu 8988 on cisco and leave it
>> 'default' (=8988) on juniper
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Krzysztof Szarkowicz wrote:
>>
>>> Let me guess.
>>>
>>> Your network is multivendor network (JNPR and CSCO) and some transit devices are CSCO?
>>>
>>> CSCO and JNPR uses different algorithm to calculate default MPLS MTU (if MPLS MTU is not
>>>
>> explicitely
>>
>>> configured) which results in 4 byte difference between CSCO side and JNPR side of the same link
>>>
>> for
>>
>>> MPLS MTU (the IP MTU is equal on both ends, so no problem with OSPF).
>>>
>>> If on JNPR side your MPLS MTU is say 1500 and on the CSCO side the MPLS MTU is 1504, when the CSCO
>>> device send an BGP update packet towards JNPR device with size 1502, this packet is dropped by
>>>
>> JNPR
>>
>>> device (as it is to big), and TCP ACK is not sent back. CSCO is keeping by resending this 1502
>>>
>> long
>>
>>> packet, and JNPR is constantly dropping. Thus, after hold timer expires, the Notification message
>>>
>> is
>>
>>> sent.
>>>
>>> I assume that with 9.3.R3.8 you didn't catched the '1502' packet sizes.
>>>
>>> Could you check with some show commands, what is the MPLS MTU on both ends of the link (which is
>>> terminated on CSCO on one side and JNPR on other side)?
>>>
>>> //Krzysztof
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Tima Maryin [mailto:tima at transtelecom.net]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, 11 November, 2009 9:57
>>> To: kszarkowicz at gmail.com
>>> Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
>>>
>>> What did you mean by "inappropriately configured" ?
>>>
>>> There are the same mtu settings everywhere and traffic passes quite well.
>>> And ospf session goes up without problems.
>>>
>>> And how comes that "inappropriately configured IP and MPLS MTU" work well on
>>> 9.3R3.8 ?
>>>
>>>
>>> Krzysztof Szarkowicz wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is not a nasty bug, but problem of inappropriately configured IP and MPLS MTUs on transit
>>>>
>>> nodes.
>>>
>>>> //Krzysztof
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf
>>>>
>>> Of
>>>
>>>> Tima Maryin
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, 11 November, 2009 8:28
>>>> To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>> Subject: Re: [j-nsp] MX960 JunOS recommendations
>>>>
>>>> 9.3R4.4 has a nasty bug which occures in setup when you have bgp session over
>>>> chain of few routers/links with ospf/ldp
>>>>
>>>> bgp session occasionally goes down with notification timeout. Even when there is
>>>> no traffic at all and no physical errors
>>>>
>>>> rollback to 9.3r3 helps though
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> JTAC still not confirmed it, but it easlily can be reprodused in lab
>>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place.
> http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MFESRP&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TEXT_MFESRP_Local_MapsMenu_Resturants_1x1
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
>
More information about the juniper-nsp
mailing list