Re: [j-nsp] MX80 BGP Convergence
observed with inline sampling enabled, 1.5m in RIB, and one v4 feed (~250k active-paths) changing state 11.4R7.5 - 10+ minutes 12.3R8.7 - ~220 seconds 14.2R1.9 - ~200 seconds YMMV > On Mar 20, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Tan Heng Chai wrote: > > Hi J-NSP, > >Just wondering if anyone has benchmark/feedback on BGP convergence > times on the MX80 with and without sampling on versions higher than 11.4R7.5, > especially with reference to PR836197 and the sampling issue? > -- > > Yours Sincerely, > > Tan Heng Chai > Chief Technical Officer - SG.GS > http://www.sg.gs > ___ > 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
Re: [j-nsp] MX80 BGP Convergence
Depends on the version of code you’re running. At best you’re looking at minutes and in some cases as much as 10 minutes. With the wrong version of Code where the sampled bug is still present you might never get routes installed in the FIB. The fix applied for the PR does allow for convergence but you see a lot of log jams and programming issues during a convergence event. Tends to install routes in a very bursty way. On Mar 20, 2015, at 1:09 PM, Tan Heng Chai wrote: > Hi J-NSP, > >Just wondering if anyone has benchmark/feedback on BGP convergence > times on the MX80 with and without sampling on versions higher than 11.4R7.5, > especially with reference to PR836197 and the sampling issue? > -- > > Yours Sincerely, > > Tan Heng Chai > Chief Technical Officer - SG.GS > http://www.sg.gs > ___ > 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
Re: [j-nsp] MX80 BGP Convergence
13.3R5 or 14.1R4 are better options Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 20, 2015, at 14:09, Tan Heng Chai wrote: > > Hi J-NSP, > >Just wondering if anyone has benchmark/feedback on BGP convergence > times on the MX80 with and without sampling on versions higher than 11.4R7.5, > especially with reference to PR836197 and the sampling issue? > -- > > Yours Sincerely, > > Tan Heng Chai > Chief Technical Officer - SG.GS > http://www.sg.gs > ___ > 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
[j-nsp] MX80 BGP Convergence
Hi J-NSP, Just wondering if anyone has benchmark/feedback on BGP convergence times on the MX80 with and without sampling on versions higher than 11.4R7.5, especially with reference to PR836197 and the sampling issue? -- Yours Sincerely, Tan Heng Chai Chief Technical Officer - SG.GS http://www.sg.gs ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Proxmox with Multicast & Juniper EX
Hi list, I hope to get some experience and tips from you regarding the usage of a Proxmox cluster using Multicast in a (juniper-based) network. Since our multicast experience is quite low and was never required before Proxmox became quickly popular and is meanwhile widely used by our customer, we are a little stuck here. The situation is as follows: Proxmox cluster communicates using multicast between the nodes being a member of the cluster. This works so far with the default configuration (igmp-snooping enabled on Juniper EX for all vlans, nothing further configured) if the nodes are on the same device. It is not working in the following setup: MX480MX80 | | +---+ | EX4550-VC | +---+ || || +---+ +---+ | EX4200-VC | | EX4200-VC | +---+ +---+ | | | Node 1 | Node 3 Node 2 Node 1 & Node 2 see each other but they don't see Node 3. It doesn't matter on which EX4200 Node 1 & 2 are placed, it always works locally but doesn't as soon as data has to travel through the EX4550 core-switch. Most likely a solution would be to simply disable igmp-snooping on the EX4550 for the vlans, where I have to have a working multicast communication. I'd really like to avoid that since we are using vlan-range configurations instead of explicitly configuration each vlan but the latter is required, in order to disable igmp-snooping for just this specific vlan. I am mostly confused why the packets passing the core makes a difference at all. For my understanding, igmp-snooping inspects the communication and passes multicast traffic to exactly those who shall receive it. Why isn't this working? I read that this requires an icmp querier. Would it help to configure that querier on one of the routers (it's two routers because of VRRP)? Can anyone explain why it is working on a local switch but not anymore as soon as a 2nd switch is involved in the path? Hopefully some of you guys are working with setups like this as well and can help to solve our issue. Thanks in advance! Jeff ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
