Re: [c-nsp] ospf database size - affects that underlying transport mtu might have

Hi, On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 12:09:11PM -0600, Clint Wade wrote: > Potential for dropping a large routing update as well causing inconsistent > route tables and missing routes. ... and dropping customer payload... gert -- now what should I write here... Gert Doering - Munich, Germany

Re: [c-nsp] ospf database size - affects that underlying transport mtu might have

Potential for dropping a large routing update as well causing inconsistent route tables and missing routes. On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 01:34:23PM -0600, Aaron Gould wrote: > > Cisco tac didn't want to do ignore-mtu

Re: [c-nsp] ospf database size - affects that underlying transport mtu might have

Hi, On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 01:34:23PM -0600, Aaron Gould wrote: > Cisco tac didn't want to do ignore-mtu And right they are. "Have OSPF come up, and then drop payload data frames because the lower layer cannot transport full size packets" is about the worst you can do to your customer data

Re: [c-nsp] ospf database size - affects that underlying transport mtu might have

Cisco tac didn't want to do ignore-mtu because I think they said there was something else further in the neighborship process that must have a sufficient transport mtu to make work... so we had to shrink the end point mtu's where the neighbors were located (my cisco asr901 at the cell tower

Re: [c-nsp] ospf database size - affects that underlying transport mtu might have

--- Begin Message --- Hi, Yes. If neighbor adjacency gets hosed at Exchange-Start, MTU is more than likely; the culprit. Ip ospf mtu-ignore can be used to confirm. IMO, bad to have this in place in a production-env; special-cases notwithstanding. ./Randy From:

Re: [c-nsp] ospf database size - affects that underlying transport mtu might have

Aaron Gould wrote: > Anyone ever experienced anything strange with underlying transport network > mtu possibly causing ospf neighbor adjacency to be broken ? yes, it happens and it's ugly. Nick ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net

Re: [c-nsp] ospf database size - affects that underlying transport mtu might have

Hi, On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 11:50:51AM -0600, Aaron Gould wrote: > This is a *single area* ospf environment, that has been stable for years.. > But now suddenly is having issues with new ospf neightbor adjacencies , > which are riding a 3rd party transport network Which is pretty standard if