Olivier, I thought that "auto-negotiation remote-fault local-interface-online" translates to "keep the local interface online despite the fact that remote-fault detection, which is part of the autonegotiation, has detected that link is unidirectional". If I connect both optical cables, enable auto-negotiation and set the remote fault either "Online" or "Offline", then both ports are still up: http://s16.postimg.org/s0rzvt0sz/autoneg_and_remote_fault2.png
Either it's not working or I am doing it wrong.. regards, Martin 2013/5/14, Olivier Benghozi <[email protected]>: > Hi Martin, > >> by flow control you mean the 'regular' Ethernet flow control using the >> PAUSE frame mechanism? > > Yes: the peers can negotiate its use, and in what direction. > In that case, such explicit flow control replaces the old school "Back > pressure" mechanism (a switch can send a fake ethernet collision signal if > it wants to slow down what it receives). > > >> I wasn't aware that remote fault detection is part of the >> autonegotiation. Thanks! I tested this out with two directly connected >> Juniper M series routers and it works exactly as you described. >> However, as I understand, JUNOS allows to enable auto-negotiation >> while at the same keep the local interface online despite the fact >> that link is unidirectional. I mean the [ auto-negotiation >> remote-fault local-interface-online ] and [ auto-negotiation >> remote-fault local-interface-offline ] options. For some reason, this >> did not work: >> http://s8.postimg.org/nd5zyo0mr/autoneg_and_remote_fault.png >> As you can see, both in case "Remote fault" "Online" or "Offline", the >> local interfaces go down if link becomes unidirectional. Any comments >> on this behavior? > > From what I understand from the very-poorly-written-by-alien-monkeys Juniper > documentation ( > http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos12.2/information-products/topic-collections/config-guide-network-interfaces/book-config-guide-network-interfaces-ethernet.pdf > ), pages 330 & more... > Well, I don't understand what they meant in this piece of crap, obviously > not expected to be ever read. The most funny is when a little * points to > just nothing, in their crappy doc. > > However in > http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/en_US/junos/topics/reference/configuration-statement/auto-negotiation-edit-interfaces.html > , I understand that this might be designed to locally simulate a > remote-fault received from the other peer, which would be really useless. Or > in fact, maybe to send a remote-fault signal to the other peer, which could > be more useful. Or not. > Is this consistent with your tests? > > Anyway, it doesn't look like it's expected to allow an unidir link with > autoneg activated (which by nature needs both speakers to be able to > communicate together, so it makes sense to me). > > > regards, > Olivier > > _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
