Hi Alex, My first thought was BGP, since we're using mostly Cisco gear, but even with BGP having less than 50 routes (in a lab), I saw the issue. Since the J6350 has not yet hit the full production stage, I haven't had a chance to really evaluate the CPU usage, but even now the CPU is idling between 90% - 93% most of the time. Load is negligible though.
-- Stephen Alex Campbell wrote: > I have noticed this on J4350s as well (the J4350s are hop 3 and 4): > > 1 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms vpn-aggr1-117gre.dtdesign.com.au > [202.92.250.50] > 2 <1 ms <1 ms <1 ms fe-0-0-0.core1.117gre.dtdesign.com.au > [202.92.250.1] > 3 10 ms 9 ms 9 ms ge-0-0-3.border1.190cit.dtdesign.com.au > [202.92.251.157] > 4 7 ms 9 ms 9 ms ge-0-0-2.border2.190cit.dtdesign.com.au > [202.92.251.18] > 5 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms as65000.border2.190cit.dtdesign.com.au > [218.100.1.25] > 6 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms you-want-fries-with-your.ausix.net > [218.100.1.14] > 7 15 ms 13 ms 14 ms pos7-0-0.switch1.syd.pacific.net.au > [210.23.140.181] > 8 13 ms 13 ms 13 ms wasted.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.55] > > We occasionally see spikes up to around 300 ms but I presume this is > just the BGP scanner running. > > Also the idle CPU usage on the J4350s seems strangely high - around 10% > with almost no traffic going through the boxes. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Fulton > Sent: Sunday, 1 July 2007 3:05 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [j-nsp] Strange latency when using traceroute. > > Hi all, > > I've noticed that when traceroute passes through our J6350 (using > 8.3R15), that the returned latency is considerably higher from the > router. Pinging the router or devices past it are fine, but this is one > of those things I know I'll be asked about, and I haven't been able to > figure out. Here's the redacted output from a sample traceroute: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ traceroute 192.168.254.2 traceroute to 192.168.254.2 > (192.168.254.2), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 router1 (192.168.110.74) 0.337 ms 0.143 ms 0.494 ms > 2 j6350 (192.168.98.65) 25.119 ms 28.051 ms 29.982 ms > 3 router3 (192.168.254.2) 1.079 ms 0.743 ms 0.962 ms > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ > > Now there are filters protecting the routing engine, but I've removed > all others for the purpose of testing. CPU load is practically zero, > and the J6350 is running OSPF and BGP. > > Any ideas? > > -- Stephen. > _______________________________________________ > juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
