[j-nsp] RSVP-TE broken between pre and post 16.1 code?

[Olivier Benghozi]

Looks like the PR about this is now available: PR1443811 «RSVP refresh-timer interoperability between 15.1 and 16.1+».

«Path message with long refresh interval (equal to or more than 20 minutes) from a node that does not support Refresh-interval Independent RSVP (RI-RSVP) is dropped by the receiver with RI-RSVP.»


> Le 2 juil. 2019 à 07:22, Simon Dixon <dicko at highway1.com.au> a écrit :
> 
> I had that issue between QFX5110's and MX's.    Some feature at the time
> forced me to run 17.4 on the QFX's and they wouldn't establish LSP's with
> older MX80's in our fleet that were still running 14.2.
> 
> I had to either downgrade the QFX's to 15.1 or upgrade the MX's to 16.1 or
> greater.  I ended up grading the MX's as they were overdue anyway.
> 
> Simon.
> 
> 
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 at 22:15, <adamv0025 at netconsultings.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi gents,
>> 
>> Just wondering if anyone experienced RSVP-TE incompatibility issues when
>> moving from pre 16.1 code to post 16.1 code.
>> Didn't get much out of Juniper folks thus far so I figured I'll ask here as
>> well.
>> 
>> The problem we're facing is that in case 17 code is LSP head-end and 15
>> code
>> is tail-end works, but in the opposite direction 17/15-to-17 (basically
>> cases where 17 is the LSP tail-end) the LSP signalling fails.
>> Trace reveals that the 17 gets the PATH message for bunch of LSPs, accepts
>> it (yes reduction and acks are used), creates the session, then deletes it
>> right away for some reason.
>> Our testing suggests there are two workarounds for this:
>> You might be aware that in 16.1 among other RSVP-TE changes the default
>> refresh-time (governing generation of successive refresh messages
>> Path/Resv)
>> changed to 1200s -so no what you think making it 1200 on 15 side wont do,
>> it
>> has to be less (e.q. 1999s).
>> If you want to keep refresh time at 1200 or higher then another option
>> strangely enough is to disable CSPF on the affected LSPs (didn't know that
>> SPF/CSPF changes contents of the PATH msg that in one case 17 code is cool
>> with PATH msg in other case not).
>> 
>> Would appreciate any pointers.