[j-nsp] QFX CRB

[Cristian Cardoso]

When there was an exhaustion of IPv4 LPM routes in spine2, I noticed a
greater increase in IRQs. I analyzed tcpdump and found nothing strange
on the server itself.
It reduces the L3 routes sent to the spines and released more slots in
the L2 profile below.

Profile active: l2-profile-three
Type            Max       Used      Free      % free
----------------------------------------------------
IPv4 Host       147456    1389      144923    98.28
IPv4 LPM        24576     18108     6286      25.58
IPv4 Mcast      73728     0         72462     98.28

IPv6 Host       73728     572       72462     98.28
IPv6 LPM(< 64)  12288     91        3143      25.58
IPv6 LPM(> 64)  2048      7         2041      99.66
IPv6 Mcast      36864     0         36231     98.28

Em qua., 11 de nov. de 2020 às 23:36, Laurent Dumont
<laurentfdumont at gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> How are you measuring IRQ on the servers? If it's network related IRQs, it should be seen during a packet capture.
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:40 PM Cristian Cardoso <cristian.cardoso11 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I running 19.1R2.8 version on Junos.
>> Today I was in contact with Juniper support about a route depletion
>> problem and it seems to be related to the IRQs problem.
>> When the IPv4 / IPv6 routes are exhausted in the LTM table, the IRQ
>> increment begins.
>> I did an analysis of the packages trafficked on the servers, but I
>> found nothing out of the ordinary.
>>
>> Em ter., 10 de nov. de 2020 às 17:47, Nitzan Tzelniker
>> <nitzan.tzelniker at gmail.com> escreveu:
>> >
>> > Looks ok to me
>> > Which junos version you are running ? and which devices ?
>> > Did you capture on the servers to see what is the traffic that causes the high CPU utilization ?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 9:07 PM Cristian Cardoso <cristian.cardoso11 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > show configuration protocols evpn
>> >> vni-options {
>> >>     vni 810 {
>> >>         vrf-target target:888:888;
>> >>     }
>> >>     vni 815 {
>> >>         vrf-target target:888:888;
>> >>     }
>> >>     vni 821 {
>> >>         vrf-target target:888:888;
>> >>     }
>> >>     vni 822 {
>> >>         vrf-target target:888:888;
>> >>     }
>> >>     vni 827 {
>> >>         vrf-target target:888:888;
>> >>     }
>> >>     vni 830 {
>> >>         vrf-target target:888:888;
>> >>     }
>> >>     vni 832 {
>> >>         vrf-target target:888:888;
>> >>     }
>> >>     vni 910 {
>> >>         vrf-target target:666:666;
>> >>     }
>> >>     vni 915 {
>> >>         vrf-target target:666:666;
>> >>     }
>> >>     vni 921 {
>> >>         vrf-target target:666:666;
>> >>     }
>> >>     vni 922 {
>> >>         vrf-target target:666:666;
>> >>     }
>> >>     vni 927 {
>> >>         vrf-target target:666:666;
>> >>     }
>> >>     vni 930 {
>> >>         vrf-target target:666:666;
>> >>     }
>> >>     vni 932 {
>> >>         vrf-target target:666:666;
>> >>     }
>> >>     vni 4018 {
>> >>         vrf-target target:4018:4018;
>> >>     }
>> >> }
>> >> encapsulation vxlan;
>> >> default-gateway no-gateway-community;
>> >> extended-vni-list all;
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> An example of configuring the interfaces follows, all follow this
>> >> pattern with more or less IP's.
>> >> > show configuration interfaces irb.810
>> >> proxy-macip-advertisement;
>> >> virtual-gateway-accept-data;
>> >> family inet {
>> >>     mtu 9000;
>> >>     address 10.19.11.253/22 {
>> >>         preferred;
>> >>         virtual-gateway-address 10.19.8.1;
>> >>     }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> Em ter., 10 de nov. de 2020 às 15:16, Nitzan Tzelniker
>> >> <nitzan.tzelniker at gmail.com> escreveu:
>> >> >
>> >> > Can you show your irb and protocols evpn configuration please
>> >> >
>> >> > Nitzan
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Cristian Cardoso <cristian.cardoso11 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Does anyone use EVPN-VXLAN in the Centrally-Routed and Bridging topology?
>> >> >> I have two spine switches and two leaf switches, when I use the
>> >> >> virtual-gateway in active / active mode in the spines, the servers
>> >> >> connected only in leaf1 have a large increase in IRQ's, generating
>> >> >> higher CPU consumption in the servers.
>> >> >> I did a test by deactivating spine2 and leaving only the gateway
>> >> >> spine1, and the IRQ was zeroed out.
>> >> >> Did anyone happen to go through this?
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> 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