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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:01 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Ben Wiechman Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:47 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@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@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@gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>> wrote: On Apr 21, 2021, at 5:52 PM, David Farmer <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:36 PM Richard Laager <rlaager@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@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