[j-nsp] optimized switchover
Matthias Gelbhardt
matthias at commy.de
Tue Sep 8 04:40:05 EDT 2009
Hi!
No, actually they are directly connected, so I do not know, why there is
a multihop output. Perhaps somehow he thinks to be not directly
connected and that is the problem?
Both routers are J6350.
Regards,
Matthias
Nilesh Khambal schrieb:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> Are these peers established over a directly connected IPs or is this an
> indirect session?
>
> The session shows multihop on both routers from the show output provided
> below.
>
> What is the router platform on both sides?
>
> Thanks,
> Nilesh
>
>
> On 9/8/09 1:25 AM, "Matthias Gelbhardt" <matthias at commy.de> wrote:
>
>> 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/sw
>>>>>> co
>>>>>> 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
>
More information about the juniper-nsp
mailing list