April 2021 - mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Doug McIntyre

Yes, but I'll go do it again. That part of the config hasn't been changed since initial setup. On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 01:01:00PM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: >Has someone HUP’d it, yet? > >Frank > >From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos >Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:54 PM >To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th > >Same here. Perhaps the BFD daemon on rs2 needs to be HUP’d to pick up values in config file? > > > Detect Transmit >Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier >2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 Up xe-0/1/0.0 1.500 0.500 3 > Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 > Session up time 2w1d 16:53:02, previous down time 00:00:00 > Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None > Remote state Up, version 1 > Session type: Single hop BFD > Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 > Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 > Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 > Remote min TX interval 0.500, min RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 > Local discriminator 19, remote discriminator 2630753610 > Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 > > Detect Transmit >Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier >2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 Up xe-0/1/0.0 2.500 0.500 3 > Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 > Session up time 2w1d 16:52:42, previous down time 00:00:00 > Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None > Remote state Up, version 1 > Session type: Single hop BFD > Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 > Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 > Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 > Remote min TX interval 0.100, min RX interval 0.010, multiplier 5 > Local discriminator 20, remote discriminator 3118078092 > Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 > > > > > > >On Apr 27, 2021, at 12:27 PM, Justin Krejci <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM<mailto:JKrejci@USINTERNET.COM>> wrote: > >We are not getting identical BFD timers or multiplier values from RS1 and RS2. > >(added blank lines for readability) >usi-cr02-mpls#show bfd peers bfd interface ethernet24/1 detail | i ^Peer|^Received|^TxI >Peer Addr 206.108.255.1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up >TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 >Peer Addr 206.108.255.2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up >TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 >Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up >TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 >Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up >TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 > > > > >________________________________ >To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > >________________________________ > >To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 30, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Frank Bulk

Has someone HUP’d it, yet? Frank From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:54 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th Same here. Perhaps the BFD daemon on rs2 needs to be HUP’d to pick up values in config file? Detect Transmit Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 Up xe-0/1/0.0 1.500 0.500 3 Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Session up time 2w1d 16:53:02, previous down time 00:00:00 Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None Remote state Up, version 1 Session type: Single hop BFD Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Remote min TX interval 0.500, min RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Local discriminator 19, remote discriminator 2630753610 Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 Detect Transmit Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 Up xe-0/1/0.0 2.500 0.500 3 Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Session up time 2w1d 16:52:42, previous down time 00:00:00 Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None Remote state Up, version 1 Session type: Single hop BFD Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Remote min TX interval 0.100, min RX interval 0.010, multiplier 5 Local discriminator 20, remote discriminator 3118078092 Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 On Apr 27, 2021, at 12:27 PM, Justin Krejci <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM<mailto:JKrejci@USINTERNET.COM>> wrote: We are not getting identical BFD timers or multiplier values from RS1 and RS2. (added blank lines for readability) usi-cr02-mpls#show bfd peers bfd interface ethernet24/1 detail | i ^Peer|^Received|^TxI Peer Addr 206.108.255.1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 Peer Addr 206.108.255.2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 30, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Andrew Hoyos

Same here. Perhaps the BFD daemon on rs2 needs to be HUP’d to pick up values in config file? Detect Transmit Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 Up xe-0/1/0.0 1.500 0.500 3 Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Session up time 2w1d 16:53:02, previous down time 00:00:00 Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None Remote state Up, version 1 Session type: Single hop BFD Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Remote min TX interval 0.500, min RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Local discriminator 19, remote discriminator 2630753610 Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 Detect Transmit Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 Up xe-0/1/0.0 2.500 0.500 3 Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Session up time 2w1d 16:52:42, previous down time 00:00:00 Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None Remote state Up, version 1 Session type: Single hop BFD Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Remote min TX interval 0.100, min RX interval 0.010, multiplier 5 Local discriminator 20, remote discriminator 3118078092 Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 > On Apr 27, 2021, at 12:27 PM, Justin Krejci <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM> wrote: > > We are not getting identical BFD timers or multiplier values from RS1 and RS2. > > (added blank lines for readability) > usi-cr02-mpls#show bfd peers bfd interface ethernet24/1 detail | i ^Peer|^Received|^TxI > > Peer Addr 206.108.255.1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up > TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 > Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 > > Peer Addr 206.108.255.2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up > TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 > Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 > > Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up > TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 > Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 > > Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up > TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 > Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1>

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 05:27:43PM +0000, Justin Krejci wrote: >We are not getting identical BFD timers or multiplier values from RS1 and RS2. I posted the configs directly out of the files earlier. I do see my sessions have different "Detect Time" for the same config, but Transmit Interval is the same. Perhaps the CPE negotiates a second link differently to provide diversity some how. Detect Transmit Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier 206.108.255.1 Up ge-1/3/9.0 1.500 0.500 3 206.108.255.2 Up ge-1/3/9.0 2.500 0.500 3 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 Up ge-1/3/9.0 1.500 0.500 3 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 Up ge-1/3/9.0 2.500 0.500 3

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Justin Krejci

We are not getting identical BFD timers or multiplier values from RS1 and RS2. (added blank lines for readability) usi-cr02-mpls#show bfd peers bfd interface ethernet24/1 detail | i ^Peer|^Received|^TxI Peer Addr 206.108.255.1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 Peer Addr 206.108.255.2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5

April 27, 2021

Re: WiscNet MICE switch maintenance 2021-04-27 7am - Noon

by Chris Wopat

On 4/20/21 12:15 PM, Chris Wopat wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > Heads up that the WiscNet remote MICE switch will be going down for > maintenance a week from today - Tuesday April 27th from 7am until > approximately noon. > > We'll gracefully tear down BGP Sessions in advance and will chime in > when complete. This maintenance is complete, things should be back online and peering re-established. We're troubleshooting an issue with a downstream connection to University of Minnesota, it is not resolved but we completed all physical troubleshooting. Details are in the MiceMN slack workspace #tech channel: https://micemn.slack.com/archives/C2J6NJS1Y/p1619525844000600 We're likely going to do additional tshooting later this week as well. -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Jeremy Lumby

I have always wondered why there was more traffic leaving RS2, and this would support that. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:00 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th I am also getting 10ms as the received value from 206.108.255.2 and 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2. I do get the expected 500ms from .1 and :1. -- Richard To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Richard Laager

I am also getting 10ms as the received value from 206.108.255.2 and 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2. I do get the expected 500ms from .1 and :1. -- Richard

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Doug McIntyre

micemn-01 protocol bfd { interface "bce1" { interval 500 ms; multiplier 3; passive; }; } micemn-02 protocol bfd { interface "bce1" { interval 500 ms; multiplier 3; passive; }; } On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 01:28:13PM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: >Are both MICE route reflectors configure to be 500 msec as of this moment? It appears that RR#2 is configured differently. > >Our router is stating that RR#2's Received RxInt is 10 msec: > >Apr 15 17:37:34 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) Bfd: %BFD-5-INCOMPATIBLE_RX_INTERVAL: Received a BFD rx interval from peer (vrf:default, ip:206.108.255.2 (AS53679-MRS-2.micemn.net) intf:Port-Channel2, srcIp:0.0.0.0, type:normal) of 10 milliseconds, outside of the supported range of 50-60000 milliseconds. (message repeated 3 times in 1.18783e+06 secs) > > >SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista(s2)#show bfd neighbors interface port-Channel 2 detail >VRF name: default >----------------- >Peer Addr 206.108.255.1, Intf Port-Channel2, Type normal, State Up >VRF default, LAddr 206.108.255.133, LD/RD 3460049634/334592880 >Session state is Up and not using echo function >Last Up Apr 24 12:11:36 2021 >Last Down Apr 24 12:11:33 2021 >Last Diag: No Diagnostic >TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 >Rx Count: 595169, Rx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 340/482/412 last: 632 ms ago >Tx Count: 566334, Tx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 371/496/433 last: 632 ms ago >Detect Time: 1500 >Sched Delay: 1*TxInt: 20967555, 2*TxInt: 4570, 3*TxInt: 0, GT 3*TxInt: 0 >Registered protocols: bgp >Uptime: 2 days, 20:11:34.74 >Last packet: Version: 1 - Diagnostic: 0 > State bit: Up - Demand bit: 0 > Poll bit: 0 - Final bit: 0 > Multiplier: 3 - Length: 24 > My Discr.: 334592880 - Your Discr.: 3460049634 > Min tx interval: 500 - Min rx interval: 500 > Min Echo interval: 0 > >Peer Addr 206.108.255.2, Intf Port-Channel2, Type normal, State Up >VRF default, LAddr 206.108.255.133, LD/RD 301505937/1393863972 >Session state is Up and not using echo function >Last Up Apr 24 12:11:37 2021 >Last Down Apr 24 12:11:33 2021 >Last Diag: No Diagnostic >TxInt: 300, RxInt: 300, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 >Rx Count: 991837, Rx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 194/480/247 last: 634 ms ago >Tx Count: 949660, Tx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 219/296/258 last: 634 ms ago >Detect Time: 1500 >Sched Delay: 1*TxInt: 35149798, 2*TxInt: 13194, 3*TxInt: 0, GT 3*TxInt: 0 >Registered protocols: bgp >Uptime: 2 days, 20:11:34.27 >Last packet: Version: 1 - Diagnostic: 0 > State bit: Up - Demand bit: 0 > Poll bit: 0 - Final bit: 0 > Multiplier: 5 - Length: 24 > My Discr.: 1393863972 - Your Discr.: 301505937 > Min tx interval: 100 - Min rx interval: 10 > Min Echo interval: 0 > >SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista(s2)# > >Frank > >-----Original Message----- >From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre >Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:01 AM >To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th > >So, you're looking to lower it from 500ms down to 50ms when most of >the recomendations are a bottom limit of 150ms? > >On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:37:52AM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: >>So can we change the route reflectors to use 50 msec? >> >>Frank >> >>From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Ben Wiechman >>Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:47 PM >>To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th >> >>IOS-XR bottoms out at 15ms. IOS/XE has typically been 150ms. >> >>Agreed that in general unless you have <50ms failover requirements 150ms+ is probably a good compromise. >> >>Ben Wiechman >>Director of IP Strategy and Engineering >>Direct: 320.256.0184 >>Cell: 320.247.3224 >>ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com<mailto:ben.wiechman@arvig.com> >>150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com<http://arvig.com> >> >>On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 17:57 Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>> wrote: >>On Apr 21, 2021, at 5:52 PM, David Farmer <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> wrote: >> >>On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:36 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com<mailto:rlaager@wiktel.com>> wrote: >>On 4/21/21 3:04 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: >>> And to follow up on my previous question, is Arista falling bit short in >>> our situation, by not supporting a receive interval of 10 msec? >> >>I've had a couple vendors suggest not to make it that short. Brocade, >>for example, suggested 150 ms as a minimum. Arista was more vague, but >>from your error message, apparently their implementation doesn't even >>try to do less than 50 ms. >> >>Maybe think about this from another perspective, 10 ms is 100 times a second, 50 ms is 20 times a second, and 150 ms just over 6 times a second. I think 10 ms is probably being a little impatient. >> >>Not the mention, the added CPU load on both ends dealing with said BFD packets 100x/sec. >> >>We’ve generally seen 50-250ms used in practice. 10ms does seem super aggressive. We use 250ms x 3 here for backbone links and peers/transit that support BFD, and 750ms x 3 facing internal gear. >> >> >>— >>Andrew Hoyos >>hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >>________________________________ >> >>To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >>http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >> >>________________________________ >> >>To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >>http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Frank Bulk

Are both MICE route reflectors configure to be 500 msec as of this moment? It appears that RR#2 is configured differently. Our router is stating that RR#2's Received RxInt is 10 msec: Apr 15 17:37:34 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) Bfd: %BFD-5-INCOMPATIBLE_RX_INTERVAL: Received a BFD rx interval from peer (vrf:default, ip:206.108.255.2 (AS53679-MRS-2.micemn.net) intf:Port-Channel2, srcIp:0.0.0.0, type:normal) of 10 milliseconds, outside of the supported range of 50-60000 milliseconds. (message repeated 3 times in 1.18783e+06 secs) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista(s2)#show bfd neighbors interface port-Channel 2 detail VRF name: default ----------------- Peer Addr 206.108.255.1, Intf Port-Channel2, Type normal, State Up VRF default, LAddr 206.108.255.133, LD/RD 3460049634/334592880 Session state is Up and not using echo function Last Up Apr 24 12:11:36 2021 Last Down Apr 24 12:11:33 2021 Last Diag: No Diagnostic TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 Rx Count: 595169, Rx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 340/482/412 last: 632 ms ago Tx Count: 566334, Tx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 371/496/433 last: 632 ms ago Detect Time: 1500 Sched Delay: 1*TxInt: 20967555, 2*TxInt: 4570, 3*TxInt: 0, GT 3*TxInt: 0 Registered protocols: bgp Uptime: 2 days, 20:11:34.74 Last packet: Version: 1 - Diagnostic: 0 State bit: Up - Demand bit: 0 Poll bit: 0 - Final bit: 0 Multiplier: 3 - Length: 24 My Discr.: 334592880 - Your Discr.: 3460049634 Min tx interval: 500 - Min rx interval: 500 Min Echo interval: 0 Peer Addr 206.108.255.2, Intf Port-Channel2, Type normal, State Up VRF default, LAddr 206.108.255.133, LD/RD 301505937/1393863972 Session state is Up and not using echo function Last Up Apr 24 12:11:37 2021 Last Down Apr 24 12:11:33 2021 Last Diag: No Diagnostic TxInt: 300, RxInt: 300, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 Rx Count: 991837, Rx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 194/480/247 last: 634 ms ago Tx Count: 949660, Tx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 219/296/258 last: 634 ms ago Detect Time: 1500 Sched Delay: 1*TxInt: 35149798, 2*TxInt: 13194, 3*TxInt: 0, GT 3*TxInt: 0 Registered protocols: bgp Uptime: 2 days, 20:11:34.27 Last packet: Version: 1 - Diagnostic: 0 State bit: Up - Demand bit: 0 Poll bit: 0 - Final bit: 0 Multiplier: 5 - Length: 24 My Discr.: 1393863972 - Your Discr.: 301505937 Min tx interval: 100 - Min rx interval: 10 Min Echo interval: 0 SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista(s2)# Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:01 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th So, you're looking to lower it from 500ms down to 50ms when most of the recomendations are a bottom limit of 150ms? On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:37:52AM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: >So can we change the route reflectors to use 50 msec? > >Frank > >From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Ben Wiechman >Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:47 PM >To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th > >IOS-XR bottoms out at 15ms. IOS/XE has typically been 150ms. > >Agreed that in general unless you have <50ms failover requirements 150ms+ is probably a good compromise. > >Ben Wiechman >Director of IP Strategy and Engineering >Direct: 320.256.0184 >Cell: 320.247.3224 >ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com<mailto:ben.wiechman@arvig.com> >150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com<http://arvig.com> > >On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 17:57 Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>> wrote: >On Apr 21, 2021, at 5:52 PM, David Farmer <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:36 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com<mailto:rlaager@wiktel.com>> wrote: >On 4/21/21 3:04 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: >> And to follow up on my previous question, is Arista falling bit short in >> our situation, by not supporting a receive interval of 10 msec? > >I've had a couple vendors suggest not to make it that short. Brocade, >for example, suggested 150 ms as a minimum. Arista was more vague, but >from your error message, apparently their implementation doesn't even >try to do less than 50 ms. > >Maybe think about this from another perspective, 10 ms is 100 times a second, 50 ms is 20 times a second, and 150 ms just over 6 times a second. I think 10 ms is probably being a little impatient. > >Not the mention, the added CPU load on both ends dealing with said BFD packets 100x/sec. > >We’ve generally seen 50-250ms used in practice. 10ms does seem super aggressive. We use 250ms x 3 here for backbone links and peers/transit that support BFD, and 750ms x 3 facing internal gear. > > >— >Andrew Hoyos >hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com> > > > > >________________________________ > >To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > >________________________________ > >To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 27, 2021