[j-nsp] Too much packet loss during switchover on MPLS network

[Matthew Tighe]

You can *disable *the interface rather than *deactivate *it. That should
show it as down immediately.

set interface fe-x/y/z disable
commit



On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Gökhan Gümüş <ggumus at gmail.com> wrote:

> It might make sense...I have been always thinking on it.
> Which way would be useful to test such behaviour?
> To disable circuit or?
>
> Thanks,
> Gokhan
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 10:15 PM, Amos Rosenboim <amos at oasis-tech.net
> >wrote:
>
> > As far as I remember deactivating the interface will not take the link
> > down, so we are relying on igp hold times to detect the failure.
> > If so, does the 45 seconds make any sense ?
> > Can you correlate igp adjacency loss to lsp switchover to customer pings
> ?
> >
> > Amos
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On 14 Mar 2011, at 21:55, "Doug Hanks" <dhanks at juniper.net> wrote:
> >
> > > If it’s VPLS, the customer wouldn’t be using BGP though.  That’s why I
> > mentioned STP.
> > >
> > > From: Keegan Holley [mailto:keegan.holley at sungard.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:47 PM
> > > To: Gökhan Gümüş
> > > Cc: Doug Hanks; Diogo Montagner; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Too much packet loss during switchover on MPLS
> > network
> > >
> > > Another to way to check would be to figure out when you start seeing
> > mac-addresses from the customer in the vpls tables.  That will mean the
> > network has failed over properly.  Do you know what the customer topology
> > looks like?  They could be waiting for BGP to fail over or something else
> > that inherently slow.  I doubt this is a problem with your mpls config,
> > especially if you see your lsp switch.  It's hard to guess without
> knowing
> > your's or the customer's topology though.
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Gökhan Gümüş <ggumus at gmail.com
> <mailto:
> > ggumus at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > > No, they are not using rapid ping, i can confirm it.
> > >
> > > I do not agree with Spanning tree issue.
> > > Just for note, i am just de-activating one circuit via CLI to trigger
> > transition from primary to secondary.
> > >
> > > Gokhan
> > >
> > >
> > > 2011/3/14 Doug Hanks <dhanks at juniper.net<mailto:dhanks at juniper.net>>
> > > I'm sure they were using a rapid ping, so it didn't take anywhere near
> 45
> > seconds.  If they were using a regular ping, however, it maybe a STP
> issue.
> > >
> > > Also are you using pre-signaled LSPs?
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net<mailto:
> > juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net> [mailto:
> > juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net<mailto:
> > juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net>] On Behalf Of Keegan Holley
> > > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:15 AM
> > > To: Diogo Montagner
> > > Cc: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>;
> > Gökhan Gümüş
> > > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Too much packet loss during switchover on MPLS
> > network
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Diogo Montagner
> > > <diogo.montagner at gmail.com<mailto:diogo.montagner at gmail.com>>wrote:
> > >
> > >> Do you have FRR enabled on the LSPs ?
> > >>
> > >
> > > Node protection and link-protection is the same thing as fast re-route.
> > >
> > > Is it configured correctly though?  You have to configure a secondary
> > path
> > > under protocols mpls and then enable it for FRR/node protection.  You
> > can't
> > > just enable it and have it work.
> > > Also, what does the topology look like?  Could you just be waiting for
> > > customer routing/spanning tree?  Even without FRR your lsp's failover
> at
> > the
> > > speed of your IGP when a link is shut down.  None of them take 41
> > seconds.
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Gökhan Gümüş <ggumus at gmail.com
> > <mailto:ggumus at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > >>> Dear all,
> > >>>
> > >>> I have a problem with one of our customer.
> > >>>
> > >>> Customer has been deployed with VPLS. We are using primary path and
> > >>> secondary path ( standby ) to handle VPLS traffic between sites.
> > >>>
> > >>> Within a maintenance window, we made a failover test. Customer was
> > >> pinging
> > >>> remote site continuosly and we would like to test how many packets
> are
> > >> being
> > >>> lost during switchover. When i triggered transition from primary to
> > >>> secondary, customer lost 41 packets during ping test. Then i
> > implemented
> > >>> node-link-protection and link protection in case they help but
> customer
> > >>> experienced same amount of packet loss during transition.
> > >>>
> > >>> My question, is it a normal behaviour? From my perspective it is not
> a
> > >>> normal behaviour.
> > >>>
> > >>> Has anybody such an experince?
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks and regards,
> > >>>
> > >>> Gokhan
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net<mailto:
> > juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> > >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net<mailto:
> > juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net>
> > >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net<mailto:
> > 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
>



-- 
Matthew Tighe
matthew.e.tighe at gmail.com