We really need to know what the topology is before ruling it out completely. Without knowing it I'd still try disabling the interface. The LSP is failing over but who knows what is going on the customer side.
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Keegan Holley <keegan.hol...@sungard.com>wrote: > I think this is moot. Op already says he sees his LSP switch to the > standby before 40s. The only thing left to verify is the customer test and > the forwarding tables. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 14, 2011, at 7:54 PM, David Ball <davidtb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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.hol...@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.ti...@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 <ggu...@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 <a...@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" <dha...@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.hol...@sungard.com] > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 12:47 PM > >>>>>> To: Gökhan Gümüş > >>>>>> Cc: Doug Hanks; Diogo Montagner; juniper-nsp@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 <ggu...@gmail.com > >>>> <mailto: > >>>>> ggu...@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 <dha...@juniper.net<mailto:dha...@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-boun...@puck.nether.net<mailto: > >>>>> juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net> [mailto: > >>>>> juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net<mailto: > >>>>> juniper-nsp-boun...@puck.nether.net>] On Behalf Of Keegan Holley > >>>>>> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:15 AM > >>>>>> To: Diogo Montagner > >>>>>> Cc: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto:juniper-nsp@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.montag...@gmail.com<mailto:diogo.montag...@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 <ggu...@gmail.com > >>>>> <mailto:ggu...@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@puck.nether.net<mailto: > >>>>> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> > >>>>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto: > >>>>> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> > >>>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net<mailto: > >>>>> juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net> > >>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > >>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > >>>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > >>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Matthew Tighe > >>> matthew.e.ti...@gmail.com > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > >>> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > -- Matthew Tighe matthew.e.ti...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
