Re: [c-nsp] udld fail ?

[Adam Vitkovsky]

> From: Nick Hilliard [mailto:n...@foobar.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 3:33 PM
> To: Adam Vitkovsky
> Cc: james list; cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] udld fail ?
>
> Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
> > There's actually also LFM and the whole CFM suit for L2 OAM.
> > So if supported you can use LFM on bundle members.
>
> the OP was using an older 6500 on one side, which mostly didn't support
> oam, from what I remember.
>
I see, yeah the support on those would be sparse but I'd give it a try.

adam



Adam Vitkovsky
IP Engineer

T:  0333 006 5936
E:  adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk
W:  www.gamma.co.uk

This is an email from Gamma Telecom Ltd, trading as “Gamma”. The contents of 
this email are confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which 
it was addressed. This email is not intended to create any legal relationship. 
No one else may place any reliance upon it, or copy or forward all or any of it 
in any form (unless otherwise notified). If you receive this email in error, 
please accept our apologies, we would be obliged if you would telephone our 
postmaster on +44 (0) 808 178 9652 or email postmas...@gamma.co.uk

Gamma Telecom Limited, a company incorporated in England and Wales, with 
limited liability, with registered number 04340834, and whose registered office 
is at 5 Fleet Place London EC4M 7RD and whose principal place of business is at 
Kings House, Kings Road West, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5BY.
---
 This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by 
Mimecast.
 For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
---
___
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] udld fail ?

[Nick Hilliard]

Adam Vitkovsky wrote:
> There's actually also LFM and the whole CFM suit for L2 OAM.
> So if supported you can use LFM on bundle members.

the OP was using an older 6500 on one side, which mostly didn't support
oam, from what I remember.

Nick

___
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] udld fail ?

[Adam Vitkovsky]

> Nick Hilliard
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 10:26 PM
> To: james list
> Cc: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] udld fail ?
>
> james list wrote:
> > Since i have also lacp fast configured, should it detect any possible
> > issue before udld?
>
> yes, by definition it will, because udld will not interoperate between ios and
> junos.  If you want to detect unidirectional link failures between ios and
> junos where you're using l2 only (i.e. no ospf/isis/etc), lacp is the only 
> game
> in town.
>
There's actually also LFM and the whole CFM suit for L2 OAM.
So if supported you can use LFM on bundle members.

adam









Adam Vitkovsky
IP Engineer

T:  0333 006 5936
E:  adam.vitkov...@gamma.co.uk
W:  www.gamma.co.uk

This is an email from Gamma Telecom Ltd, trading as “Gamma”. The contents of 
this email are confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which 
it was addressed. This email is not intended to create any legal relationship. 
No one else may place any reliance upon it, or copy or forward all or any of it 
in any form (unless otherwise notified). If you receive this email in error, 
please accept our apologies, we would be obliged if you would telephone our 
postmaster on +44 (0) 808 178 9652 or email postmas...@gamma.co.uk

Gamma Telecom Limited, a company incorporated in England and Wales, with 
limited liability, with registered number 04340834, and whose registered office 
is at 5 Fleet Place London EC4M 7RD and whose principal place of business is at 
Kings House, Kings Road West, Newbury, Berkshire, RG14 5BY.
---
 This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by 
Mimecast.
 For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com
---
___
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] udld fail ?

[Satish Patel]

We have two cisco 3850 switch connected over 10g with udld enabled and recently 
we upgrade one of switch and as soon as switch reload it put 10g link in 
err-disable mode, if I disable udld it works. 

Any idea what would be wrong?

--
Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 6, 2016, at 5:25 PM, Nick Hilliard  wrote:
> 
> james list wrote:
>> Since i have also lacp fast configured, should it detect any possible
>> issue before udld?
> 
> yes, by definition it will, because udld will not interoperate between
> ios and junos.  If you want to detect unidirectional link failures
> between ios and junos where you're using l2 only (i.e. no
> ospf/isis/etc), lacp is the only game in town.
> 
>> And should it be reported in a syslog message both on cisco ios or junos?
> 
> on the cisco side, you'll get a link up/down notification because the
> line protocol will drop.  On the junos side, you can get whatever
> logging messages you want, but you will need to configure them in
> traceoptions.
> 
> Nick
> ___
> 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] udld fail ?

[Nick Hilliard]

james list wrote:
> Since i have also lacp fast configured, should it detect any possible
> issue before udld?

yes, by definition it will, because udld will not interoperate between
ios and junos.  If you want to detect unidirectional link failures
between ios and junos where you're using l2 only (i.e. no
ospf/isis/etc), lacp is the only game in town.

> And should it be reported in a syslog message both on cisco ios or junos?

on the cisco side, you'll get a link up/down notification because the
line protocol will drop.  On the junos side, you can get whatever
logging messages you want, but you will need to configure them in
traceoptions.

Nick
___
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] udld fail ?

[james list]

yes, in general I see your points, I was wondering if there could be a
reasonable reason for the mentioned behaviour

2016-05-31 16:33 GMT+02:00 Nick Hilliard :

> james list wrote:
> > Apparently the Cisco gear has disabled one out of the two ten giga
> > interface after some flapping of the other one and due to UDLD that is
> > currently non configured as aggressive nor bidirectional (not supported
> by
> > Juniper gear).
> >
> > Among the two gears LACP fast is running.
> >
> > I kindly ask any feedback if it's something already experienced by
> somebody.
>
> udld is proprietary and non-interoperable technology.  One vendor's
> implementation will not work with another's.  Sometimes, a vendor's
> implementation will not interoperate with other equipment from the same
> vendor.  You need to disable udld on the c6500.
>
> Nick
>
>
___
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] udld fail ?

[Nick Hilliard]

james list wrote:
> Apparently the Cisco gear has disabled one out of the two ten giga
> interface after some flapping of the other one and due to UDLD that is
> currently non configured as aggressive nor bidirectional (not supported by
> Juniper gear).
> 
> Among the two gears LACP fast is running.
> 
> I kindly ask any feedback if it's something already experienced by somebody.

udld is proprietary and non-interoperable technology.  One vendor's
implementation will not work with another's.  Sometimes, a vendor's
implementation will not interoperate with other equipment from the same
vendor.  You need to disable udld on the c6500.

Nick

___
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] udld fail ?

[james list]

dear experts
I've a Cisco 6500 (12.2(33)) connected to a juniper EX4200 with a 2 x 10Gb
port channel.

Apparently the Cisco gear has disabled one out of the two ten giga
interface after some flapping of the other one and due to UDLD that is
currently non configured as aggressive nor bidirectional (not supported by
Juniper gear).

Among the two gears LACP fast is running.

I kindly ask any feedback if it's something already experienced by somebody.

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/