[j-nsp] MX issue

[Huan Pham]

Another thing to look for is QoS.

By default when you telnet or ping from MX1 to MX4, then both MX1 and MX4 puts your icmp & telnet into Best Effort queue. You may want to put Telnet into a better than best effort class if you want a better response for your telnet session, and leave icmp as is.

http://www.juniper.net/documentation/en_US/junos13.3/topics/reference/general/hw-cos-default-re-queues-reference-cos-config-guide.html

Huan



> On 18 Oct 2014, at 5:49 pm, Huan Pham <drie.huanpham at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> If the passing through traffic does not experience any issue, then I do not think it is related to "asymmetric" routing, or a congestion on a particular link in the multi paths that exist between MX1 & MX4. 
> 
> It is more likely related to a high CPU utilisation on MX4, or a RE protection (policing/ rate-limiting) mechanism on MX4.
> 
> Huan,
> 
>> On 17 Oct 2014, at 6:52 pm, R LAS <dim0sal at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Strange issue.
>> 
>> Let put it simple, my customer have a network like this:
>> 
>> MX1 --- wan --  MX3
>> |                          |
>> MX2 --- wan --  MX4
>> 
>> MX are MX480.
>> 
>> Pings from MX1 to a vip address active on MX4 are 40% lost.
>> 
>> A telnet from MX1 to a vip address active on MX4 takes 20 to 50 seconds to open the first time, the second is faster.
>> I suspect asymetric routing but it's still not clear (I do not manage the customer net).
>> 
>> I'm told that passing through traffic do not experience any kind of issue.
>> 
>> I'm thinking to ddos protection but still not got the output from the customer...
>> Any other idea about the issue ? 
>> 
>> Greetings                         
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp