Re: [j-nsp] Trouble with 100G link MX204 <-> Dell S4100F-ON
On the topic of FEC modethought I'd share something I found a while back when testing the ACX5448 with an MX960 The ACX5448 40 gig interface defaulted to FEC74... the MX960 40 gig interface on an MPC7E-MRATE module default to FEC "NONE" 40 gig link would not come up agould@lab-960> show system information Model: mx960 Family: junos Junos: 17.4R2-S1.2 Hostname: lab-960 agould@eng-lab-5448> show system information Model: acx5448 Family: junos Junos: 18.3-20180825.3 Hostname: eng-lab-5448 After reconfig of FEC mode on ACX5448 to NONE, interface came up and we passed ping tests... agould@eng-lab-5448> show interfaces et-0/1/0 | grep "fec mode" Ethernet FEC Mode : NONE agould@lab-960> show interfaces et-0/1/0 | grep "fec mode" Ethernet FEC Mode : NONE [edit] root@eng-lab-5448# set interfaces et-0/1/0 gigether-options fec ? Possible completions: fec74FEC74 enabled fec91IEEE 802.3bj Clause 91, Reed-Solomon FEC (RS-FEC) none FEC disabled -Aaron ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Trouble with 100G link MX204 <-> Dell S4100F-ON
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 at 19:49, Emmanuel Halbwachs wrote: > > Thanks. I'll upgrade and let the list know if it works without the FEC > > knob. > > Just upgraded to 19.4R1.10: same situation, FEC91 is needed to bring > 100G links up. 100GE standards either mandate FEC91 or do not mention it. But there is nothing at all wrong running FEC91 for example in LR4, a lot of good reasons to do so. The problem of course is, you have to somehow know if _this_ optic needs FEC91 or not, and as far as I know they rely on EEPROM to understand that , and that seems a bit fragile. Personally if I control both ends, I'd always run FEC91. You can fix problems before they become customer symptomatic and you can approve new circuit for service immediately, as FEC91 will be constantly sending data, so you'll immediately know at turn-up if link is good or not. No need for fragile ping-tests. Going forward, it's unlikely new standards without FEC will happen, as it's a cheap trick to add reach. -- ++ytti ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Trouble with 100G link MX204 <-> Dell S4100F-ON
Emmanuel Halbwachs (Fri 2020-03-13 18:14:00 +0100) : > Thanks. I'll upgrade and let the list know if it works without the FEC > knob. Just upgraded to 19.4R1.10: same situation, FEC91 is needed to bring 100G links up. Cheers, -- Emmanuel Halbwachs Resp. Réseau/Sécurité Observatoire de Paris ✆ +33 1 45 07 75 54 Paris : 61 av. de l'Observatoire F 75014 PARIS Meudon : 11 (face 32) av. Marcellin Berthelot F 92190 MEUDON ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Trouble with 100G link MX204 <-> Dell S4100F-ON
Hi, - On 13 Mar, 2020, at 20:07, Mark Tinka mark.ti...@seacom.mu wrote: > On 13/Mar/20 19:54, Chris Adams wrote: > >> I'm using 1G optics on MX204 with 18.1. Not sure why you need to go to >> 19... > > There are some that worked on 18, and others only worked on 19. > > Could be where we got them from. Didn't have the time to work it out - > 1Gbps optics are the exception on our end, not the rule. I assume that auto-negotiation with fiber SFPs is still unsupported in 19.X and always will be? Antti ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Trouble with 100G link MX204 <-> Dell S4100F-ON
--- Begin Message --- We haven't had 1G fiber problems yet, 18.3R3. I've had intermittent success with SFP-T at 1G, but they are third party pluggables. It sounds like you don't have a PR? But in case you do, I'm sure many (including our network) would benefit. -Michael > -Original Message- > From: juniper-nsp On Behalf Of > Mark Tinka > Sent: Friday, March 13, 2020 1:07 PM > To: juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] Trouble with 100G link MX204 <-> Dell S4100F-ON > > > > On 13/Mar/20 19:54, Chris Adams wrote: > > > I'm using 1G optics on MX204 with 18.1. Not sure why you need to go to > > 19... > > There are some that worked on 18, and others only worked on 19. > > Could be where we got them from. Didn't have the time to work it out - > 1Gbps optics are the exception on our end, not the rule. > > Mark. > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp --- End Message --- ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Trouble with 100G link MX204 <-> Dell S4100F-ON
On 13/Mar/20 19:54, Chris Adams wrote: > I'm using 1G optics on MX204 with 18.1. Not sure why you need to go to > 19... There are some that worked on 18, and others only worked on 19. Could be where we got them from. Didn't have the time to work it out - 1Gbps optics are the exception on our end, not the rule. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Trouble with 100G link MX204 <-> Dell S4100F-ON
Once upon a time, Mark Tinka said: > We've had to go all the way to Junos 19 for 1Gbps optics on the MX204. I'm using 1G optics on MX204 with 18.1. Not sure why you need to go to 19... -- Chris Adams ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Trouble with 100G link MX204 <-> Dell S4100F-ON
On 13/Mar/20 19:14, Emmanuel Halbwachs wrote: > > Thanks. I'll upgrade and let the list know if it works without the FEC > knob. Yes, this will be good fodder. Mark. ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Trouble with 100G link MX204 <-> Dell S4100F-ON
On 13/Mar/20 19:02, Vincentz Petzholtz wrote: > Hi Emmanuel, > > We haven’t had a lot of „good experience“ with Junos 17.4 on MX204. > I would recommend to upgrade to latest s point release within the 18.1R3 > train. > We had issues with certain D/CWDM internal mux optics like CLR4 or CLR4+ > before that. > 1G speeds are also broken with pre 18.1. We've had to go all the way to Junos 19 for 1Gbps optics on the MX204. Mark. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Trouble with 100G link MX204 <-> Dell S4100F-ON
Vincentz Petzholtz (Fri 2020-03-13 18:02:29 +0100) : > I would recommend to upgrade to latest s point release within the 18.1R3 > train. > We had issues with certain D/CWDM internal mux optics like CLR4 or CLR4+ > before that. > 1G speeds are also broken with pre 18.1. Thanks. I'll upgrade and let the list know if it works without the FEC knob. -- Emmanuel Halbwachs Resp. Réseau/Sécurité Observatoire de Paris ✆ +33 1 45 07 75 54 Paris : 61 av. de l'Observatoire F 75014 PARIS Meudon : 11 (face 32) av. Marcellin Berthelot F 92190 MEUDON ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: [j-nsp] Trouble with 100G link MX204 <-> Dell S4100F-ON
Hi Emmanuel, We haven’t had a lot of „good experience“ with Junos 17.4 on MX204. I would recommend to upgrade to latest s point release within the 18.1R3 train. We had issues with certain D/CWDM internal mux optics like CLR4 or CLR4+ before that. 1G speeds are also broken with pre 18.1. Good luck! Best regards, Vincentz > Am 13.03.2020 um 17:41 schrieb Emmanuel Halbwachs > : > > Hello, > > By chance, have somebody on this list succeeded in connecting at 100G a > MX204 to a Dell S4100-ON series ? > > I didn't succeed. > > MX204 <-> MX204 is OK. > Dell S4100 <-> Dell S4100 is OK. > MX204 <-> Dell S4100 is not OK... > > I'm using the same brand of (compatible) QSFP28 10G-SR4. They just > differ by firmware tagging, but both Junos and DNOS accept foreign > transceivers anyway. > > Cable is 12 FO multimode MTP, same for all tests. > > Dell are at lastest version and MX204 are at 17.4. > > If someone has a clue, It will be most welcome. > > Next step is to ask both supports, but I fear ping-pong. > > Have a nice week-end, > > -- > Emmanuel Halbwachs Resp. Réseau/Sécurité > Observatoire de Paris ✆ +33 1 45 07 75 54 > Paris : 61 av. de l'Observatoire F 75014 PARIS > Meudon : 11 (face 32) av. Marcellin Berthelot F 92190 MEUDON > ___ > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
[j-nsp] Trouble with 100G link MX204 <-> Dell S4100F-ON
Hello, By chance, have somebody on this list succeeded in connecting at 100G a MX204 to a Dell S4100-ON series ? I didn't succeed. MX204 <-> MX204 is OK. Dell S4100 <-> Dell S4100 is OK. MX204 <-> Dell S4100 is not OK... I'm using the same brand of (compatible) QSFP28 10G-SR4. They just differ by firmware tagging, but both Junos and DNOS accept foreign transceivers anyway. Cable is 12 FO multimode MTP, same for all tests. Dell are at lastest version and MX204 are at 17.4. If someone has a clue, It will be most welcome. Next step is to ask both supports, but I fear ping-pong. Have a nice week-end, -- Emmanuel Halbwachs Resp. Réseau/Sécurité Observatoire de Paris ✆ +33 1 45 07 75 54 Paris : 61 av. de l'Observatoire F 75014 PARIS Meudon : 11 (face 32) av. Marcellin Berthelot F 92190 MEUDON ___ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
