On 3/20/20 5:57 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
> It’s the protocol 50 IPSEC VPNs. They are very sensitive to path changes and
> reordering as well.
Is there a reason these are so sensitive to re-ordering or path changes? ESP
should just encap whatever is underneath it on a packet-by-packet basis and b
> Saku Ytti
> Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2020 4:26 PM
>
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 at 18:19, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
> > So the three or four times we tried to get FAT going (in a
> > multi-vendor network), it simply didn't work.
>
> Yeah we run it in a multivendor network (JNPR, CSCO, NOK), works.
>
>
On 22/Mar/20 19:17, Saku Ytti wrote:
> You don't need both. My rule of thumb, green field, go with entropy
> and get all the services in one go. Brown field, go FAT, and target
> just PW, ensure you also have CW, then let transit LSR balance
> MPLS-IP. With entropy label you can entirely disabl
On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 at 16:25, Mark Tinka wrote:
> So the latter. We used both FAT + entropy to provide even load balancing
> of l2vpn payloads in the edge and core, with little success.
You don't need both. My rule of thumb, green field, go with entropy
and get all the services in one go. Brown
On 22/Mar/20 11:52, Saku Ytti wrote:
> So you're not even talking about multivendor, as both ends are JNPR?
> Or are you confusing entropy label with FAT?
Some cases were MX480 to ASR920, but most were MX480 to MX480, either
transiting CRS.
>
> Transit doesn't know anything about FAT, FAT is
On Sun, 22 Mar 2020 at 09:41, Mark Tinka wrote:
> We weren't as successful (MX480 ingress/egress devices transiting a CRS
> core).
So you're not even talking about multivendor, as both ends are JNPR?
Or are you confusing entropy label with FAT?
Transit doesn't know anything about FAT, FAT is PW
Hey Tassos,
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 at 22:51, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
wrote:
> Yep, the RFC gives this option.
> Does Juniper MX/ACX series support it?
> I know for sure Cisco doesn't.
I only run bidir, which Cisco do you mean? ASR9k allows you to configure it.
both Insert/Discard Flow labe
On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 12:53 AM Saku Ytti wrote:
> Hey Matthew,
>
> > There are *several* caveats to doing dynamic monitoring and remapping of
> > flows; one of the biggest challenges is that it puts extra demands on the
> > line cards tracking the flows, especially as the number of flows rises
On 22/Mar/20 10:08, Adam Atkinson wrote:
>
> I don't know how well-known this is, and it may not be something many
> people would want to do, but Enterasys switches, now part of Extreme's
> portfolio, allow "round-robin" as a load-sharing algorithm on LAGs.
>
> see e.g.
>
> https://gtacknowledg
On 20/03/2020 21:33, Nimrod Levy wrote:
I was contacted by my NOC to investigate a LAG that was not distributing
traffic evenly among the members to the point where one member was
congested while the utilization on the LAG was reasonably low.
I don't know how well-known this is, and it may not
On 21/Mar/20 18:25, Saku Ytti wrote:
> Yeah we run it in a multivendor network (JNPR, CSCO, NOK), works.
>
> I would also recommend people exclusively using CW+FAT and disabling
> LSR payload heuristics (JNPR default, but by default won't do with CW,
> can do with CW too).
We weren't as succes
Saku Ytti wrote on 21/3/20 19:04:
> On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 at 18:55, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
> wrote:
>
>> I still don't understand why the vendors cannot make it work in one
>> direction only (the low-end platform would only need to remove an extra
>> label, no need to inspect traffic).
>> That
(skipping up the thread some)
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 5:58 PM Jared Mauch wrote:
> It’s the protocol 50 IPSEC VPNs. They are very sensitive to path changes and
> reordering as well.
>
> If you’re tunneling more than 5 or 10Gb/s of IPSEC it’s likely going to be a
> bad day when you find a low s
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 at 18:55, Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
wrote:
> I still don't understand why the vendors cannot make it work in one direction
> only (the low-end platform would only need to remove an extra label, no need
> to inspect traffic).
> That would help us a lot, since the majority of ou
Mark Tinka wrote on 21/3/20 18:15:
> So the three or four times we tried to get FAT going (in a multi-vendor
> network), it simply didn't work.
>
> Have you (or anyone else) had any luck with it, in practice?
>
> Mark.
>
Only between Cisco boxes.
I still don't understand why the vendors cannot
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 at 18:19, Mark Tinka wrote:
> So the three or four times we tried to get FAT going (in a multi-vendor
> network), it simply didn't work.
Yeah we run it in a multivendor network (JNPR, CSCO, NOK), works.
I would also recommend people exclusively using CW+FAT and disabling
LSR
On 21/Mar/20 09:58, Saku Ytti wrote:
> No.
>
> FAT adds additional MPLS label for entropy, ingressPE calculates flow
> hash, based on traditional flow keys and injects that flow number as
> MPLS label, so transit LSR can use MPLS labels for balancing, without
> being able to parse the frame. S
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 at 04:20, Steve Meuse wrote:
> What that large flow in a single LSP? Is this something that FAT lsp would
> fix?
No.
FAT adds additional MPLS label for entropy, ingressPE calculates flow
hash, based on traditional flow keys and injects that flow number as
MPLS label, so tra
Hey Matthew,
> There are *several* caveats to doing dynamic monitoring and remapping of
> flows; one of the biggest challenges is that it puts extra demands on the
> line cards tracking the flows, especially as the number of flows rises to
> large values. I recommend reading
> https://www.juniper
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 3:07 PM Job Snijders wrote:
> Do we know which specific VPN technologies specifically are harder to
> hash in a meaningful way for load balanacing purposes, than others?
I would expect it to be true of any site to site VPN data flow. The
whole idea is for the guy in the mi
What that large flow in a single LSP? Is this something that FAT lsp would
fix?
-Steve
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 5:33 PM Nimrod Levy wrote:
> I just ran into an issue that I thought was worth sharing with the NANOG
> community. With recently increased visibility on keeping the Internet
> running
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 05:57:19PM -0400, Jared Mauch wrote:
> You also need to watch out to ensure you’re not on some L2VPN type
> product that bumps up against a barrier. I know it’s a stressful time
> for many networks and systems people as traffic shifts.
A few years ago we did a presentatio
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 3:09 PM Saku Ytti wrote:
> Hey Nimrod,
>
> > I was contacted by my NOC to investigate a LAG that was not distributing
> traffic evenly among the members to the point where one member was
> congested while the utilization on the LAG was reasonably low. Looking at
> my netfl
Once upon a time, Nimrod Levy said:
> With the increase in remote workers and VPN traffic that won't hash across
> multiple paths, I thought this anecdote might help someone else track down
> a problem that might not be so obvious.
Last week I ran into an issue where traffic between my home and w
Hey Nimrod,
> I was contacted by my NOC to investigate a LAG that was not distributing
> traffic evenly among the members to the point where one member was congested
> while the utilization on the LAG was reasonably low. Looking at my netflow
> data, I was able to confirm that this was caused b
> On Mar 20, 2020, at 5:50 PM, Job Snijders wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 05:33:31PM -0400, Nimrod Levy wrote:
>> With the increase in remote workers and VPN traffic that won't hash across
>> multiple paths, I thought this anecdote might help someone else track down
>> a problem that migh
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 05:33:31PM -0400, Nimrod Levy wrote:
> With the increase in remote workers and VPN traffic that won't hash across
> multiple paths, I thought this anecdote might help someone else track down
> a problem that might not be so obvious.
Do we know which specific VPN technologie
27 matches
Mail list logo
