Re: [j-nsp] VMX 17.1 experiencing high latency/packet loss with SRIOV

2017-04-05 Thread stephane.litkowski
Hi, This is one of my feeling also but I do not have the confirmation yet (yes the release notes points to Niantic only but the orchestration scripts detects and checks/accepts the i40e driver). The fact that you faced issues with CSR1000V also points also in this direction. Thanks for the feed

Re: [j-nsp] VMX 17.1 experiencing high latency/packet loss with SRIOV

2017-04-05 Thread James Bensley
On 5 April 2017 at 15:38, wrote: > The NIC is an Intel XL710 running at 10Gbps. I don't know about vMX for Junos 17, is the i40evf driver supported (for X710 Intel NICs)? We are having a similar issue with Cisco's CSR1000v on CentOS with KVM and X710 NICs. The i40evf driver isn't support by the

[j-nsp] VMX 17.1 experiencing high latency/packet loss with SRIOV

2017-04-05 Thread stephane.litkowski
Hi, We are trying to setup a VMX in 17.1R1 in SRIOV mode. When trying to ping a directly connected physical node over one of the SRIOV interface, we experience packet losses and a very high latency. There is no issue with the virtio interfaces (like management...) that have a normal behavior, on

Re: [j-nsp] Negative ARP caching, on an MX router (again)

2017-04-05 Thread Saku Ytti
On 5 April 2017 at 16:45, Nitzan Tzelniker wrote: Hey, > Did someone test if ddos-protraction for protocol resolve with > flow-detection detect the source IP and drop its requests I'm sure it works, but you only have about 5k policers for all of ddos-protection, so keeping 'sub' level detection

Re: [j-nsp] Negative ARP caching, on an MX router (again)

2017-04-05 Thread Nitzan Tzelniker
Did someone test if ddos-protraction for protocol resolve with flow-detection detect the source IP and drop its requests Nitzan On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Alexander Arseniev wrote: > Hello, > > If You have control over Your L3 space assignments, have You tried > point-to-point Ethernet int

Re: [j-nsp] Negative ARP caching, on an MX router (again)

2017-04-05 Thread Alexander Arseniev
Hello, If You have control over Your L3 space assignments, have You tried point-to-point Ethernet interfaces with static /32 routes? Assuming 203.0.113.0/24 subnet, Your router IP is 203.0.113.1, and there are 2 hosts 203.0.113.2 + 203.0.113.3 directly connected to ge-0/0/0 and ge-0/0/1 resp