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

[David Ball]

  Disabling an interface or yanking fibers is certainly quicker....you
can speed up convergence following a deactivate if you add BFD and
maybe some LFA, but the loss of light on an interface has been faster
than a deactivate in every case I've ever tested.

David



2011/3/14 Keegan Holley <keegan.holley at sungard.com>:
> Deactivating the interface should remove the IP address which should cause
> the IGP to converge immediately.
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Matthew Tighe <matthew.e.tighe at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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