Re: [c-nsp] Stange issue on 100 Gbs interconnection Juniper - Cisco
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 members) 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_DOWN_PARENT_DOWN: Interface port-channel101.2303 is down (Parent interface is down) 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: bgp- [xxx] (xxx) neighbor 172.16.6.17 Down - sent: other configuration change 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETH_PORT_CHANNEL-5-FOP_CHANGED: port-channel101: first operational port changed from Ethernet1/44 to none 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETH_PORT_CHANNEL-5-PORT_DOWN: port-channel101: Ethernet1/44 is down 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_BANDWIDTH_CHANGE: Interface port-channel101,bandwidth changed to 10 Kbit 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_DOWN_INITIALIZING: Interface Ethernet1/44 is down (Initializing) 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_DOWN_PORT_CHANNEL_MEMBERS_DOWN: Interface port-channel101 is down (No operational members) 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-SPEED: Interface port-channel101, operational speed changed to 100 Gbps 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_DUPLEX: Interface port-channel101, operational duplex mode changed to Full 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_RX_FLOW_CONTROL: Interface port-channel101, operational Receive Flow Control state changed to off 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_TX_FLOW_CONTROL: Interface port-channel101, operational Transmit Flow Control state changed to off 2024 Feb 9 16:39:39 NEXUS1 %ETH_PORT_CHANNEL-5-PORT_UP: port-channel101: Ethernet1/44 is up 2024 Feb 9 16:39:39 NEXUS1 %ETH_PORT_CHANNEL-5-FOP_CHANGED: port-channel101: first operational port changed from none to Ethernet1/44 2024 Feb 9 16:39:39 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_BANDWIDTH_CHANGE: Interface port-channel101,bandwidth changed to 1 Kbit 2024 Feb 9 16:39:39 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_UP: Interface Ethernet1/44 is up in Layer3 2024 Feb 9 16:39:39 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_UP: Interface port-channel101 is up in Layer3 2024 Feb 9 16:39:39 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_UP: Interface port-channel101.2303 is up in Layer3 2024 Feb 9 16:39:43 NEXUS1 %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: bgp- [xxx] (xxx) neighbor 172.16.6.17 Up Feb 9 16:39:35.813 2024 MX1 lacpd[31632]: LACPD_TIMEOUT: et-0/1/5: lacp current while timer expired current Receive State: CURRENT Feb 9 16:39:35.813 2024 MX1 lacpd[31632]: LACP_INTF_DOWN: ae49: Interface marked down due to lacp timeout on member et-0/1/5 Feb 9 16:39:35.819 2024 MX1 kernel: lag_bundlestate_ifd_change: bundle ae49: bundle IFD minimum bandwidth or minimum links not met, Bandwidth (Current : Required) 0 : 1000 Number of links (Current : Required) 0 : 1 Feb 9 16:39:35.815 2024 MX1 lacpd[31632]: LACP_INTF_MUX_STATE_CHANGED: ae49: et-0/1/5: Lacp state changed from COLLECTING_DISTRIBUTING to ATTACHED, actor port state : |EXP|-|-|-|IN_SYNC|AGG|SHORT|ACT|, partner port state : |-|-|DIS|COL|OUT_OF_SYNC|AGG|SHORT|ACT| Feb 9 16:39:35.869 2024 MX1 rpd[31866]: bgp_ifachange_group:10697: NOTIFICATION sent to 172.16.6.18 (External AS xxx): code 6 (Cease) subcode 6 (Other Configuration Change), Reason: Interface change for the peer-group Feb 9 16:39:35.909 2024 MX1 mib2d[31909]: SNMP_TRAP_LINK_DOWN: ifIndex 684, ifAdminStatus up(1), ifOperStatus down(2), ifName ae49 Feb 9 16:39:36.083 2024 MX1 lacpd[31632]: LACP_INTF_MUX_STATE_CHANGED: ae49: et-0/1/5: Lacp state changed from ATTACHED to COLLECTING_DISTRIBUTING, actor port state : |-|-|DIS|COL|IN_SYNC|AGG|SHORT|ACT|, partner port state : |-|-|DIS|COL|IN_SYNC|AGG|SHORT|ACT| Feb 9 16:39:36.089 2024 MX1 kernel: lag_bundlestate_ifd_change: bundle ae49 is now Up. uplinks 1 >= min_links 1 Feb 9 16:39:36.089 2024 MX1 kernel: lag_bundlestate_ifd_change: bundle ae49: bundle IFD minimum bandwidth or minimum links not met, Bandwidth (Current : Required) 0 : 1000 Number of links (Current : Required) 0 : 1 Feb 9 16:39:36.085 2024 MX1 lacpd[31632]: LACP_INTF_MUX_STATE_CHANGED: ae49: et-0/1/5: Lacp state changed from COLLECTING_DISTRIBUTING to ATTACHED, actor port state : |-|-|-|-|IN_SYNC|AGG|SHORT|ACT|, partner port state : |-|-|-|-|OUT_OF_SYNC|AGG|SHORT|ACT| Feb 9 16:39:39.095 2024 MX1 lacpd[31632]: LACP_INTF_MUX_STATE_CHANGED: ae49: et-0/1/5: Lacp state changed from ATTACHED to COLLECTING_DISTRIBUTING, actor port state : |-|-|DIS|COL|IN_SYNC|AGG|SHORT|ACT|, partner port state : |-|-|-|-|IN_SYNC|AGG|SHORT|ACT| Feb 9 16:39:39.101 2024 MX1 kernel: lag_bundlestate_ifd_change: bundle ae49 is now Up. uplinks 1 >= min_links 1 Feb 9 16:39:39.109 2024 MX1 mib2d[31909]: SNMP_TRAP_LINK_UP: ifIndex 684, ifAdminStatus up(1), ifOperStatus up(1), ifName ae49 Feb 9 16:39:41.190 2024 MX1 rpd[31866]: bgp_recv: read from peer 172.16.6.18 (External AS xxx) failed: Unknown error: 48110976 CONFIG: CISCO NEXUS1# sh run int
Re: [c-nsp] Stange issue on 100 Gbs interconnection Juniper - Cisco
DC technicians states cable are the same in both DCs and direct, no patch panel Cheers Il giorno dom 11 feb 2024 alle ore 11:20 nivalMcNd d ha scritto: > Can it be DC1 is connecting links over an intermediary patch panel and you > face fibre disturbance? That may be eliminated if your interfaces on DC1 > links do not go down > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2024, 21:16 Igor Sukhomlinov via cisco-nsp < > cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote: > >> Hi James, >> >> Do you happen to run the same software on all nexuses and all MXes? >> Do the 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 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 sporadically (ie every 1 to 3 days) we notice >> BGP >> > flaps only in DC1 on both interconnections (not at the same time), >> there is >> > still no traffic since once noticed the flaps we have blocked deploy on >> > production. >> > >> > We've already changed SPF (we moved the ones from DC2 to DC1 and >> viceversa) >> > and cables on both the interconnetion at DC1 without any solution. >> > >> > SFP we use in both DCs: >> > >> > Juniper - QSFP-100G-SR4-T2 >> > Cisco - QSFP-100G-SR4 >> > >> > over MPO cable OM4. >> > >> > Distance is DC1 70 mt and DC2 80 mt, hence is less where we see the >> issue. >> > >> > Any idea or suggestion what to check or to do ? >> > >> > Thanks in advance >> > Cheers >> > James >> > ___ >> > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >> > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >> > >> ___ >> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >> > ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Stange issue on 100 Gbs interconnection Juniper - Cisco
yes same version currently no traffic exchange is in place, just BGP peer setup no traffic Il giorno dom 11 feb 2024 alle ore 11:16 Igor Sukhomlinov < dvalinsw...@gmail.com> ha scritto: > Hi James, > > Do you happen to run the same software on all nexuses and all MXes? > Do the 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 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 sporadically (ie every 1 to 3 days) we notice BGP >> flaps only in DC1 on both interconnections (not at the same time), there >> is >> still no traffic since once noticed the flaps we have blocked deploy on >> production. >> >> We've already changed SPF (we moved the ones from DC2 to DC1 and >> viceversa) >> and cables on both the interconnetion at DC1 without any solution. >> >> SFP we use in both DCs: >> >> Juniper - QSFP-100G-SR4-T2 >> Cisco - QSFP-100G-SR4 >> >> over MPO cable OM4. >> >> Distance is DC1 70 mt and DC2 80 mt, hence is less where we see the issue. >> >> Any idea or suggestion what to check or to do ? >> >> Thanks in advance >> Cheers >> James >> ___ >> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp >> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ >> > ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Stange issue on 100 Gbs interconnection Juniper - Cisco
Hi One think I've omit to say is that BGP is over a LACP with currently just one interface 100 Gbs. I see that the issue is triggered on Cisco when eth interface seems to go in Initializing state: 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_DOWN_PORT_CHANNEL_MEMBERS_DOWN: Interface port-channel101 is down (No operational members) 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_DOWN_PARENT_DOWN: Interface port-channel101.2303 is down (Parent interface is down) 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: bgp- [xxx] (xxx) neighbor 172.16.6.17 Down - sent: other configuration change 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETH_PORT_CHANNEL-5-FOP_CHANGED: port-channel101: first operational port changed from Ethernet1/44 to none 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETH_PORT_CHANNEL-5-PORT_DOWN: port-channel101: Ethernet1/44 is down 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_BANDWIDTH_CHANGE: Interface port-channel101,bandwidth changed to 10 Kbit 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_DOWN_INITIALIZING: Interface Ethernet1/44 is down (Initializing) 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_DOWN_PORT_CHANNEL_MEMBERS_DOWN: Interface port-channel101 is down (No operational members) 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-SPEED: Interface port-channel101, operational speed changed to 100 Gbps 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_DUPLEX: Interface port-channel101, operational duplex mode changed to Full 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_RX_FLOW_CONTROL: Interface port-channel101, operational Receive Flow Control state changed to off 2024 Feb 9 16:39:36 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_TX_FLOW_CONTROL: Interface port-channel101, operational Transmit Flow Control state changed to off 2024 Feb 9 16:39:39 NEXUS1 %ETH_PORT_CHANNEL-5-PORT_UP: port-channel101: Ethernet1/44 is up 2024 Feb 9 16:39:39 NEXUS1 %ETH_PORT_CHANNEL-5-FOP_CHANGED: port-channel101: first operational port changed from none to Ethernet1/44 2024 Feb 9 16:39:39 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_BANDWIDTH_CHANGE: Interface port-channel101,bandwidth changed to 1 Kbit 2024 Feb 9 16:39:39 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_UP: Interface Ethernet1/44 is up in Layer3 2024 Feb 9 16:39:39 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_UP: Interface port-channel101 is up in Layer3 2024 Feb 9 16:39:39 NEXUS1 %ETHPORT-5-IF_UP: Interface port-channel101.2303 is up in Layer3 2024 Feb 9 16:39:43 NEXUS1 %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: bgp- [xxx] (xxx) neighbor 172.16.6.17 Up Cheers 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 usually $C is fairly good at logging the reason. > > Any interface errors, packet errors, ping packets lost? > > "BGP flaps" *can* be related to lower layer issues (so: interface counters, > error counters, extended pings) or to something unrelated, like "MaxPfx > exceeded"... > > gert > -- > "If was one thing all people took for granted, was conviction that if you > feed honest figures into a computer, honest figures come out. Never > doubted > it myself till I met a computer with a sense of humor." > Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh > Mistress > > Gert Doering - Munich, Germany > g...@greenie.muc.de > ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Stange issue on 100 Gbs interconnection Juniper - Cisco
Can it be DC1 is connecting links over an intermediary patch panel and you face fibre disturbance? That may be eliminated if your interfaces on DC1 links do not go down On Sun, Feb 11, 2024, 21:16 Igor Sukhomlinov via cisco-nsp < cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> wrote: > Hi James, > > Do you happen to run the same software on all nexuses and all MXes? > Do the 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 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 sporadically (ie every 1 to 3 days) we notice > BGP > > flaps only in DC1 on both interconnections (not at the same time), there > is > > still no traffic since once noticed the flaps we have blocked deploy on > > production. > > > > We've already changed SPF (we moved the ones from DC2 to DC1 and > viceversa) > > and cables on both the interconnetion at DC1 without any solution. > > > > SFP we use in both DCs: > > > > Juniper - QSFP-100G-SR4-T2 > > Cisco - QSFP-100G-SR4 > > > > over MPO cable OM4. > > > > Distance is DC1 70 mt and DC2 80 mt, hence is less where we see the > issue. > > > > Any idea or suggestion what to check or to do ? > > > > Thanks in advance > > Cheers > > James > > ___ > > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > ___ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Re: [c-nsp] Stange issue on 100 Gbs interconnection Juniper - Cisco
Hi James, Do you happen to run the same software on all nexuses and all MXes? Do the 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 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 sporadically (ie every 1 to 3 days) we notice BGP > flaps only in DC1 on both interconnections (not at the same time), there is > still no traffic since once noticed the flaps we have blocked deploy on > production. > > We've already changed SPF (we moved the ones from DC2 to DC1 and viceversa) > and cables on both the interconnetion at DC1 without any solution. > > SFP we use in both DCs: > > Juniper - QSFP-100G-SR4-T2 > Cisco - QSFP-100G-SR4 > > over MPO cable OM4. > > Distance is DC1 70 mt and DC2 80 mt, hence is less where we see the issue. > > Any idea or suggestion what to check or to do ? > > Thanks in advance > Cheers > James > ___ > cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
[c-nsp] Stange issue on 100 Gbs interconnection Juniper - Cisco
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 sporadically (ie every 1 to 3 days) we notice BGP flaps only in DC1 on both interconnections (not at the same time), there is still no traffic since once noticed the flaps we have blocked deploy on production. We've already changed SPF (we moved the ones from DC2 to DC1 and viceversa) and cables on both the interconnetion at DC1 without any solution. SFP we use in both DCs: Juniper - QSFP-100G-SR4-T2 Cisco - QSFP-100G-SR4 over MPO cable OM4. Distance is DC1 70 mt and DC2 80 mt, hence is less where we see the issue. Any idea or suggestion what to check or to do ? Thanks in advance Cheers James ___ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
