[j-nsp] optimized switchover

[Matthias Gelbhardt]

Hi!

That is the doc I have used for configuring.

Both routers are Juniper routers over a Laver 2 Link directly connected. 
  One router is 9.3R2.8 The other 9.4R2.9.

Regards,

Matthias

Nilesh Khambal schrieb:
> Hi Matthias,
> 
> What JUNOS version are you running on this router? Is other end router also
> a Juniper router? Are both peers directly connected or is this a multihop
> session?
> 
> Try this doc link see if it can help.
> 
> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos85/swconfig85-routing/id
> -13279139.html#id-13279139
> 
> Thanks,
> Nilesh.
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/8/09 12:53 AM, "Matthias Gelbhardt" <matthias at commy.de> wrote:
> 
>> Has no one an idea? It seems, that I am really stuck here. Do I have to
>> activate something on the other side (hence the AdminDown status?)
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>> Matthias Gelbhardt schrieb:
>>> Hello David,
>>>
>>> great tip. Unfortunatly BFD for BGP - though detailed documented - has
>>> no examples flying around. Perhaps I am missing something here.
>>>
>>> I have two routers connected via iBGP. I have tried to make the
>>> configuration rather simple (only the important parts, BGP session is up
>>> and running):
>>>
>>> This is the same on both sides (change in the IP-addresses of course)
>>>
>>> protocols bgp {
>>>     group internal {
>>>     type internal;
>>>     neighbor 91.190.xxx.xxx {
>>>         local-address 91.190.xxx.xxx;
>>>         bfd-liveness-detection {
>>>             minimum-interval 1000;
>>>             multiplier 3;
>>>         }
>>>     }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Router A:
>>> show bfd session extensive
>>>                                                   Detect   Transmit
>>> Address                  State     Interface      Time     Interval
>>> Multiplier
>>> 91.190.xxx.xxx           Init                     3.000     1.000  3
>>>  Client BGP, TX interval 1.000, RX interval 1.000
>>>  Session down time 00:00:04
>>>  Local diagnostic CtlExpire, remote diagnostic None
>>>  Remote state Down, version 1
>>>  Min async interval 1.000, min slow interval 1.000
>>>  Adaptive async TX interval 1.000, RX interval 1.000
>>>  Local min TX interval 1.000, minimum RX interval 1.000, multiplier 3
>>>  Remote min TX interval 1.000, min RX interval 1.000, multiplier 3
>>>  Local discriminator 1, remote discriminator 1
>>>  Echo mode disabled/inactive, no-absorb, no-refresh, update-adj
>>>  Multi-hop, min-recv-TTL 0, route table 0, local-address 91.190.xxx.xxx
>>>
>>> 1 sessions, 1 clients
>>> Cumulative transmit rate 1.0 pps, cumulative receive rate 1.0 pps
>>>
>>> Router B:
>>> show bfd session extensive
>>>                                                   Detect   Transmit
>>> Address                  State     Interface      Time     Interval
>>> Multiplier
>>> 91.190.xxx.xxx           Down                     0.000     1.000  3
>>>  Client BGP, TX interval 1.000, RX interval 1.000
>>>  Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None
>>>  Remote state AdminDown, version 1
>>>  Min async interval 1.000, min slow interval 1.000
>>>  Adaptive async TX interval 1.000, RX interval 1.000
>>>  Local min TX interval 1.000, minimum RX interval 1.000, multiplier 3
>>>  Remote min TX interval 0.000, min RX interval 0.000, multiplier 0
>>>  Local discriminator 1, remote discriminator 0
>>>  Echo mode disabled/inactive, no-absorb, no-refresh
>>>  Multi-hop route table 0, local-address 91.190.xxx.xxx
>>>
>>> 1 sessions, 1 clients
>>> Cumulative transmit rate 1.0 pps, cumulative receive rate 0.0 pps
>>>
>>> I see the diagnostic on router A but do not understand it. I thought the
>>> minimum-interval might be too low, so I set it up to a thousand.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>> David Ball schrieb:
>>>>   There are likely several answers to that, all dependant on your
>>>> topology and protocol use. But, a good place to start would be BFD
>>>> (bidirectional forwarding detection).  Juniper has decent support for
>>>> it working with other protocols (OSPF, ISIS, BGP, RIP), notifying them
>>>> that something may be wrong, allowing them to then make a decision
>>>> (support may differ from protocol to protocol).  That may be a good
>>>> start point.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/software/junos/junos95/swconfig-routing/swco
>>>> nfig-routing-IX.html#B
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David B
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2009/9/6 Matthias Gelbhardt <matthias at commy.de>:
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder what the best practices for optimized switchovers would be?
>>>>> I mean
>>>>> fast comprehension of failed BGP connections? A fibre cut or
>>>>> something like
>>>>> that, how can I be sure, that my routers are detecting the failed
>>>>> session as
>>>>> soon as possible? What would be the best practices fpr that?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Matthias
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>