Re: [j-nsp] mx960 to mx960 via ciena 6500 - mtu smaller in the middle

On 17 April 2018 at 11:57, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:34:18PM +0300, Saku Ytti wrote: >> On 17 April 2018 at 11:25, James Bensley wrote: >> >> > Also you say you have OSPF and LDP up but if you bring up BGP over >> > this

Re: [j-nsp] mx960 to mx960 via ciena 6500 - mtu smaller in the middle

> This issue is my turning up new MX960's that are simply connected together > with Ciena 6500 DWDM for me to have an MTU issue via DWDM is actually a > surprise to me. I pretty much always envisioned wave/lamda dwdm as darn near > like having an actual fiber cable... no, not the case

Re: [j-nsp] mx960 to mx960 via ciena 6500 - mtu smaller in the middle

It depends if the DWDM gear is purely L1 or if it is doing OTN switching (it will be doing OTN if you are mapping 1 or more lower rate client side signals into 1 or more higher rate line side signals). The latter deals with framing and would have MTU limits. The former would have a 1:1

Re: [j-nsp] mx960 to mx960 via ciena 6500 - mtu smaller in the middle

Lukas, I am learning and continue to learn and continue to ask questions even if I thought I understood it before and realize maybe I don't understand it the way that I did previously... factor into that bad memory, getting older, forgetting, then what you have is a human. This issue is my

Re: [j-nsp] mx960 to mx960 via ciena 6500 - mtu smaller in the middle

Hi, On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 12:34:18PM +0300, Saku Ytti wrote: > On 17 April 2018 at 11:25, James Bensley wrote: > > > Also you say you have OSPF and LDP up but if you bring up BGP over > > this link you may have issues. BGP packs UPDATE messages up to the TCP > > MSS

Re: [j-nsp] mx960 to mx960 via ciena 6500 - mtu smaller in the middle

Hello Aaron, On 16 April 2018 at 21:58, Aaron Gould wrote: > See juniper interface MTU is set to max 16000 bytes. but when I ping I can > only get 9584 bytes through to the other side of the link. This mx960 is > linked to another mx960, but Ciena 6500 dwdm is in between the

Re: [j-nsp] mx960 to mx960 via ciena 6500 - mtu smaller in the middle

> > If you are carrying the full table for example, then you could end up with > BGP UPDATE messages 16000 > bytes long they won't cross the link. Y Just to mention that rfc4271 states maximum bgp message size of 4096, although there is a draft

Re: [j-nsp] mx960 to mx960 via ciena 6500 - mtu smaller in the middle

On 16 April 2018 at 20:58, Aaron Gould wrote: > See juniper interface MTU is set to max 16000 bytes. but when I ping I can > only get 9584 bytes through to the other side of the link. This mx960 is > linked to another mx960, but Ciena 6500 dwdm is in between the mx960's. Hi

Re: [j-nsp] mx960 to mx960 via ciena 6500 - mtu smaller in the middle

Hi, On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 05:12:43PM -0400, Justin M. Streiner wrote: > You're better off staying within the limits of what the intermediate gear > will support. Fragmentation and re-assembly if you expect to fill a 16000 > byte frame (or fill one enough to cause fragmentation as the frame

Re: [j-nsp] mx960 to mx960 via ciena 6500 - mtu smaller in the middle

On Mon, 16 Apr 2018, Aaron Gould wrote: See juniper interface MTU is set to max 16000 bytes. but when I ping I can only get 9584 bytes through to the other side of the link. This mx960 is linked to another mx960, but Ciena 6500 dwdm is in between the mx960's. Is there any reason why I should

Re: [j-nsp] mx960 to mx960 via ciena 6500 - mtu smaller in the middle

Hi, On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 10:14:46PM +0200, sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > > See juniper interface MTU is set to max 16000 bytes. but when I ping I can > > only get 9584 bytes through to the other side of the link. This mx960 is > > linked to another mx960, but Ciena 6500 dwdm is in between the

Re: [j-nsp] mx960 to mx960 via ciena 6500 - mtu smaller in the middle

> See juniper interface MTU is set to max 16000 bytes. but when I ping I can > only get 9584 bytes through to the other side of the link. This mx960 is > linked to another mx960, but Ciena 6500 dwdm is in between the mx960's. > > Is there any reason why I should be concerned that currently Ciena