> James Bensley
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 9:50 AM
>
> On 28 May 2016 at 10:31, Adam Vitkovsky
> wrote:
> > Alright then so indeed nodes participating in echo mode have to do more
> work as nodes participating in non-echo mode. That's why assume it
> performs slower (comparing performance of bo
On 28 May 2016 at 10:31, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
> Alright then so indeed nodes participating in echo mode have to do more work
> as nodes participating in non-echo mode. That's why assume it performs slower
> (comparing performance of both modes in SW).
>
> To do list of one of the nodes in non-e
> James Bensley
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 7:27 PM
>
> > On 27 May 2016 at 18:07, Adam Vitkovsky
> wrote:
> >> Also I would have thought that in echo mode since each side is
> responsible for checking its own packets independently of the remote end
> then each side can also run its own timers -t
> James Bensley
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 7:21 PM
>
> On 27 May 2016 at 18:07, Adam Vitkovsky
> wrote:
> >> James Bensley
> >> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 2:28 PM
> >> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BFD on ME3600/ME380
> On 27 May 2016 at 18:07, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
>> Also I would have thought that in echo mode since each side is responsible
>> for checking its own packets independently of the remote end then each side
>> can also run its own timers -though I'm not sure if also in echo mode
>> there's timer
On 27 May 2016 at 18:07, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
>> James Bensley
>> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 2:28 PM
>> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BFD on ME3600/ME3800/7600s
>>
>> In echo mode the local node sends echo packets at the specified
> James Bensley
> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 2:28 PM
> To: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] BFD on ME3600/ME3800/7600s
>
> In echo mode the local node sends echo packets at the specified interval of
> 50ms, the remote node loops them back in hardware (because t
I sent that email a bit early.
I meant to say on the end that I think my original understanding of
the poor Cisco documentation is correct, I just don't have it in
official writing from Cisco but can reliably replicate it in the lab..
On 26 May 2016 at 16:36, James Bensley wrote:
...
>From the
On 27 May 2016 at 07:29, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
>> James Bensley
>> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 4:37 PM
>>
>> Running BFD in no echo mode (which is what I usually do) we see the
>> average interval is a lovely 47ms (but I've never had 100% clarification of
>> why):
>> Rx Count: 3314443, Rx Interva
On 27 May 2016 at 09:29, Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
> And according to your little test it looks like the looping back is lot more
> process intensive then just resetting holdup timer.
The design goal was opposite. Echo mode was supposed to be the
performant and easy to implement in HW. Results look
> James Bensley
> Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2016 4:37 PM
>
> Running BFD in no echo mode (which is what I usually do) we see the
> average interval is a lovely 47ms (but I've never had 100% clarification of
> why):
> Rx Count: 3314443, Rx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 1/72/47 last: 36 ms ago Tx
> Count:
Hi All,
On devices like the ASR9000s and ASR920s we have hardware acceleration
for BFD echo mode and this works as expected. On platforms that do not
have hardware support for BFD echo mode such as the
ME3600X/ME3800X/7600 I am confused as to how I am getting low BFD
interval times.
Enabling echo
12 matches
Mail list logo
