Thanks
good point on LACP Fast, we'll test it.
RSTP should be in any case slower than 3 seconds with LACP FAST.
Cheers
James
Il giorno lun 6 mag 2024 alle ore 15:22 Saku Ytti ha scritto:
> On Mon, 6 May 2024 at 15:53, james list via cisco-nsp
> wrote:
>
> > The questio
dear experts
a customer of mine has a legacy environment with 4 x Cisco 9500 (IOS XE
17.09.03) connected in a square mode with 2 links (2 per each connection)
and each couple of links is considered a single virtual port (port-channel).
Loops are managed with PVSTP.
Two x C9500 are in DC1 while the
hi
I'd like to test with LACP slow, then can see if physical interface still
flaps...
Thanks for your support
Il giorno dom 11 feb 2024 alle ore 18:02 Saku Ytti ha
scritto:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 at 17:52, james list wrote:
>
> > - why physical interface flaps in DC1 if it is related to lacp ?
Hi
I have a couple of points to ask related to your idea:
- why physical interface flaps in DC1 if it is related to lacp ?
- why the same setup in DC2 do not report issues ?
NEXUS01# sh logging | in Initia | last 15
2024 Jan 17 22:37:49 NEXUS01 %ETHPORT-5-IF_DOWN_INITIALIZING: Interface
On Cisco I see physical goes down (initializing), what does that mean?
While on Juniper when the issue happens I always see:
show log messages | last 440 | match LACPD_TIMEOUT
Jan 25 21:32:27.948 2024 MX1 lacpd[31632]: LACPD_TIMEOUT: et-0/1/5: lacp
current while timer expired current Receive
Hi
1) cable has been replaced with a brand new one, they said that to check an
MPO 100 Gbs cable is not that easy
3) no errors reported on both side
2) here the output of cisco and juniper
NEXUS1# sh interface eth1/44 transceiver details
Ethernet1/44
transceiver is present
type is
Hi
there are no errors on both interfaces (Cisco and Juniper).
here following logs of one event on both side, config and LACP stats.
LOGS of one event time 16:39:
CISCO
2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_DOWN_PORT_CHANNEL_MEMBERS_DOWN:
Interface port-channel101 is down (No operational
session exchange the same amount of routing updates
>> across the links?
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 11, 2024, 21:09 james list via cisco-nsp <
>> cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Dear experts
>> > we have a couple of BGP pe
he DC1 and DC2 bgp session exchange the same amount of routing updates
> across the links?
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2024, 21:09 james list via cisco-nsp <
> cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote:
>
>> Dear experts
>> we have a couple of BGP peers over a 100 Gbs interconnec
James
Il giorno dom 11 feb 2024 alle ore 11:12 Gert Doering
ha scritto:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 11:08:29AM +0100, james list via cisco-nsp wrote:
> > we notice BGP flaps
>
> Any particular error message? BGP flaps can happen due to many different
> reasons, and u
Dear experts
we have a couple of BGP peers over a 100 Gbs interconnection between
Juniper (MX10003) and Cisco (Nexus N9K-C9364C) in two different datacenters
like this:
DC1
MX1 -- bgp -- NEXUS1
MX2 -- bgp -- NEXUS2
DC2
MX3 -- bgp -- NEXUS3
MX4 -- bgp -- NEXUS4
The issue we see is that
to 1s, but not CSCO. I'm not sure if this
> is the only problem, as insufficient data is shown about the state and
> LACP PDUs.
>
> I believe the command is 'lacp rate fast' or 'lacp period short', to
> reduce risk of operators getting bored, In your case, the former.
>
> On S
Dear expert
we've an issue in setting up a port-channel between a Juniper EX4400 and a
Cisco Nexus N9K-C93180YC-EX over an SX 1 Gbs link.
We've implemented the following configuration but on Juniper side it is
interface flapping while on Cisco side it remains down.
Light levels seem ok.
Has
13 matches
Mail list logo
