Hi Saku, This is very simple setup:
linux (.206) ---- LAN---- mx104(.210) ---- p2p---- isp (.209) Pretty much 1.4 is what is expected. The only place the delay occurs is on ingress from the ISP to MX104. If I ping MX104 outbound (.210) int I get 0.5 ms. No worries anyway ... just thought anyone run into this before. Cheers, R, On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:14 PM Saku Ytti <s...@ytti.fi> wrote: > There isn't enough information to answer your question. > > But one possible reason is that you're choosing a different path in SW > and HW. Or that the answers are not even coming from host you think > (tshark might add information). > > a) is 1.4ms possible in terms of speed-of-light? > b) where are 24ms packets sitting, do you also have longer path > available or are you heavily congested causing massive queueing delay? > > > > On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 at 15:09, Robert Raszuk <rob...@raszuk.net> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > Would anyone have any idea why IP packets with options are forwarded via > > MX104 20x faster then regular IP packets ? > > > > "fast" PFE path - 24-35 ms > > "slow" RE path - 1-4 ms > > > > Example (I used record route to force IP Options punt to slow path): > > > > rraszuk@cto-lon2:~$ ping 62.189.71.209 -R -v > > PING 62.189.71.209 (62.189.71.209) 56(124) bytes of data. > > 64 bytes from 62.189.71.209: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=1.44 ms > > RR: 69.191.176.206 > > 10.249.23.7 > > 62.189.71.209 > > 10.249.23.7 > > 69.191.176.206 > > > > 64 bytes from 62.189.71.209: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=1.38 ms > > 64 bytes from 62.189.71.209: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=1.46 ms > > 64 bytes from 62.189.71.209: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=1.41 ms > > 64 bytes from 62.189.71.209: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=1.49 ms > > 64 bytes from 62.189.71.209: icmp_seq=6 ttl=63 time=1.46 ms > > 64 bytes from 62.189.71.209: icmp_seq=8 ttl=63 time=1.52 ms > > 64 bytes from 62.189.71.209: icmp_seq=9 ttl=63 time=2.84 ms > > 64 bytes from 62.189.71.209: icmp_seq=10 ttl=63 time=1.77 ms > > ^C > > --- 62.189.71.209 ping statistics --- > > 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9014ms > > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.386/1.892/4.117/0.849 ms > > > > Now I use normal ping running between 62.189.71.209 & 69.191.176.206 in > > "fast" path: > > > > rraszuk@cto-lon2:~$ ping 62.189.71.209 -v > > PING 62.189.71.209 (62.189.71.209) 56(84) bytes of data. > > 64 bytes from 62.189.71.209: icmp_seq=1 ttl=63 time=24.1 ms > > 64 bytes from 62.189.71.209: icmp_seq=2 ttl=63 time=31.5 ms > > 64 bytes from 62.189.71.209: icmp_seq=3 ttl=63 time=24.1 ms > > 64 bytes from 62.189.71.209: icmp_seq=4 ttl=63 time=24.1 ms > > 64 bytes from 62.189.71.209: icmp_seq=5 ttl=63 time=24.0 ms > > 64 bytes from 62.189.71.209: icmp_seq=6 ttl=63 time=24.1 ms > > ^C > > --- 62.189.71.209 ping statistics --- > > 6 packets transmitted, 6 received, 0% packet loss, time 5006ms > > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 24.097/25.369/31.563/2.774 ms > > rraszuk@cto-lon2:~$ > > > > Best, > > R. > > _______________________________________________ > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp > > > > -- > ++ytti > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp