> I raised the same point to Joerg in another forum and suggested JTAC,
> if I had to venture a guess, perhaps PFE_ID 128 is actually RE
> injected packet?
>
>
I though of this, but it shouldn't come through the fabric.
JTAC is always an option but, as it is I-chip, it might be not supported.
On 1 August 2017 at 14:48, Pavel Lunin wrote:
> Some strange thing here is PFE_ID 128. This should be a kind of dummy ID
> (MX960 max PFE_ID is 47), I don't know what it means. Maybe some I-CHIP
> specificity, e. g., as I remember, they looped packets, switched between
> two
+1 to Saku.
This means your egress PFE, identified by FPC and ICHIP(),
receives corrupted cells from the fabric. It might be caused by ingress PFE
or fabric chips or even backplane lines.
In this case you see it on different fabric streams, so it means that this
is not caused by a single faulty
Hey,
Over fabric you have 1 stream per NPU_ingress to NPU_egress per QoS.
Usually just 2 QoS classes, I think maybe in ICHIP just 1 class. At
any rate as the stream numbers are so small, these are low priority
streams even in Trio.
It is telling you that traffic coming to egress ICHIPs in those
Hi Guys,
i get several messages like:
Aug 1 03:34:13 xxx fpc0 ICHIP(3)_REG_ERR:packet checksum error in input
fab_stream 4 pfe_id 128
Aug 1 03:34:19 xxx fpc2 ICHIP(0)_REG_ERR:packet checksum error in input
fab_stream 7 pfe_id 128
Aug 1 03:36:24 xxx fpc7 ICHIP(3)_REG_ERR:packet checksum
5 matches
Mail list logo