[j-nsp] reliability of ping to router physical-, sub- or loopback interface

[Bill Blackford]

With Juniper, most exception traffic (ICMP, etc.) is handled by the
RE. There is a built in mechanism to rate limit this traffic in an
attempt to prevent DOS attacks save the control-plane.

-b



On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 2:12 AM, Martin T <m4rtntns at gmail.com> wrote:
> Very often customers or NMS send ICMP "echo request" packages to a
> router physical interface, subinterface or loopback interface and
> expect ICMP "echo reply" as a response in order to test packet loss on
> the connection. How reliable are Juniper routers in terms of replying
> to ICMP "echo request" packages? As far as I know, ICMP traffic gets
> software based handling and thus delay of the ICMP "echo reply"(or if
> there is a reply sent at all) depends on the load of the CPU. Does
> this depend on specific router model? Or has this more to do with
> interface type? Can one prioritized/de-prioritized ICMP generation
> under JUNOS?
>
> PS many questions, but an exhaustive discussion on this topic would be nice :)
>
>
> regards,
> martin
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>



-- 
Bill Blackford
Network Engineer

Logged into reality and abusing my sudo privileges.....