Re: 100g PCS Errors

[Saku Ytti]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 21:39, Mark Tinka  wrote:

> > What is the device on the other side of the MX204 100G link.   We've had 
> > some incrementing PCS errors on 100G links when the other side was a 
> > Juniper PTX1000 using port et-0/0/25.   Using a different port on the 
> > PTX1000 resolved the incrementing PCS errors.  We opened JTAC cases for two 
> > incidents and a root cause was never found.
>
> Good to know, we are just about to start deploying a bunch of PTX1000's.

On QSFP28 devices I would recommend always when possible run RS-FEC.
By default LR4 doesn't run it, but the added value is fantastic. You
will immediately during turn-up know if circuit works or not, without
any ping testing or live traffic. You will know if the circuit doesn't
work, before it impacts customers. Combine preFEC with DDM and you
have fantastic predictive power over failures and you can
reroute/schedule maintenance to fix issues before they become
symptomatic.

Unfortunately no SNMP counters for RS-FEC. No for Juniper, not for
Nokia, not for Arista, so screenscraping you go. I have an ER-079886
for JNPR, if someone wants to chip in.


--
  ++ytti

Re: Boston Telecom Hotels

[Martin Hannigan]

For interconnection? Coresite and Markley. Equals if not soon to be
differentiated through Mass-IX being regional and Boston-IX not. As well as
costs, yield curves, power costs, etc. Boston is very much a ‘what do you
need’ location and not everything will work for everyone.

For true carrier hotels? 451 D Street, 230 Congress and 50 Post Office
Square. If you need help with that solution, reach out to me directly. I
will get you pointed in the right direction and the right people. These are
not enterprise plays unless you have deep fiber clue and want long term NNN
leases.

For Boston commodity data center? See {datacenterhawk, peeringDB}.

There is a solid core of Boston on this list. Catch us aksi on Twitter
@peeringforumNE or search engine = Boston Network Operators Group BOSNOG.

300 Bent is fiber rich. Never stood up as an interconnection site. Level 3
wasn’t neutral. 50 IB? Don’t think Internap was neutral per se, but someone
will correct me if I am wrong.


Cheers,

-M<


On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 16:16 Rod Beck 
wrote:

> Does everyone agree that the 4 most important data centers are 1 Summer,
> Coresite, INAP, and 300 Bent Street. Both 1 Summer and Coresite clearly
> below in that group. Not sure about INAP and 300 Bent Street.
>
> Regards,
>
> Roderick.
>
> Roderick Beck
> VP of Business Development
>
> United Cable Company
>
> www.unitedcablecompany.com
>
> New York City & Budapest
>
> rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com
>
> Budapest: 36-70-605-5144
>
> NJ: 908-452-8183
>
>
> [image: 1467221477350_image005.png]
>

Re: Boston Telecom Hotels

[Jason Kuehl]

One Summer is overdue for its annual fire.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 4:14 PM Rod Beck 
wrote:

> Does everyone agree that the 4 most important data centers are 1 Summer,
> Coresite, INAP, and 300 Bent Street. Both 1 Summer and Coresite clearly
> below in that group. Not sure about INAP and 300 Bent Street.
>
> Regards,
>
> Roderick.
>
> Roderick Beck
> VP of Business Development
>
> United Cable Company
>
> www.unitedcablecompany.com
>
> New York City & Budapest
>
> rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com
>
> Budapest: 36-70-605-5144
>
> NJ: 908-452-8183
>
>
> [image: 1467221477350_image005.png]
>


-- 
Sincerely,

Jason W Kuehl
Cell 920-419-8983
jason.w.ku...@gmail.com

Boston Telecom Hotels

[Rod Beck]

Does everyone agree that the 4 most important data centers are 1 Summer, 
Coresite, INAP, and 300 Bent Street. Both 1 Summer and Coresite clearly below 
in that group. Not sure about INAP and 300 Bent Street.

Regards,

Roderick.


Roderick Beck

VP of Business Development

United Cable Company

www.unitedcablecompany.com

New York City & Budapest

rod.b...@unitedcablecompany.com

Budapest: 36-70-605-5144

NJ: 908-452-8183


[1467221477350_image005.png]

Re: 100g PCS Errors

[Mark Tinka]

On 19/Aug/20 19:34, Clinton Work wrote:

> What is the device on the other side of the MX204 100G link.   We've had some 
> incrementing PCS errors on 100G links when the other side was a Juniper 
> PTX1000 using port et-0/0/25.   Using a different port on the PTX1000 
> resolved the incrementing PCS errors.  We opened JTAC cases for two incidents 
> and a root cause was never found.   

Good to know, we are just about to start deploying a bunch of PTX1000's.

Mark.

Re: 100g PCS Errors

[Clinton Work]

What is the device on the other side of the MX204 100G link.   We've had some 
incrementing PCS errors on 100G links when the other side was a Juniper PTX1000 
using port et-0/0/25.   Using a different port on the PTX1000 resolved the 
incrementing PCS errors.  We opened JTAC cases for two incidents and a root 
cause was never found.   

--
Clinton Work
Airdrie, AB

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020, at 6:46 AM, Nicholas Warren wrote:
> We've got a 100g qsfp in an mx204 that has 1207 bit errors and 29666 
> errored blocks after 24 hours of just being linked up...
> I would assume this is not normal behavior, but I haven't used 100g 
> before. Do others see high error rates on their 100g optics?
>

Re: 100g PCS Errors

[Aaron]

we have been making 100G packet capture systems for 5 years now ( fmad.io
). In the early days vendor qualified transceivers really do make a
difference, its 25Gbps signaling per differential pair which is anything
but easy. Back then (4-5Y ago) the cheap QSFP28 vendors had some really
marginal parts... we had to tune the fpga alot to get the QSFP28s to to
work correctly, and even then some just wouldnt work at all / have alot of
errors.

If your using latests Finisar or Avago level transceivers should be fine,
currently (last 12 months) the cheap transceivers dont need any tuning too.
Guess depends if your using old HW / old transceivers or new HW with new
transceivers.

Aaron

On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 23:21, Tom Beecher  wrote:

> It's not normal, no.
>
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:02 AM Nicholas Warren <
> nwar...@barryelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> We've got a 100g qsfp in an mx204 that has 1207 bit errors and 29666
>> errored blocks after 24 hours of just being linked up...
>> I would assume this is not normal behavior, but I haven't used 100g
>> before. Do others see high error rates on their 100g optics?
>>
>

NANOG Women in Tech: A Conversation with Jezzibell Gilmore

[NANOG News]

*“We're the pioneers; we have to pave the way for everyone else.”*

Our newest series on NANOG TV explores the stories and career paths of some
of the most exceptional women we know. Watch our third interview, featuring
Jezzibell Gilmore of PacketFabric, to learn more about her experience as a
woman navigating the world of network engineering.

Watch Now 

Re: 100g PCS Errors

[Tom Beecher]

It's not normal, no.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:02 AM Nicholas Warren 
wrote:

> We've got a 100g qsfp in an mx204 that has 1207 bit errors and 29666
> errored blocks after 24 hours of just being linked up...
> I would assume this is not normal behavior, but I haven't used 100g
> before. Do others see high error rates on their 100g optics?
>

Re: 100g PCS Errors

[Matt Harris]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 9:16 AM J. Hellenthal via NANOG 
wrote:

> Id hope by this point you’ve already reseated not only the card but the
> connection to the card as well ?.
>
> Possibly a faulty card.
>

I'm guessing by card you mean the optic? These are QSFP28 ports.

Clean fiber as Daniel mentioned, reseat optic, the usual stuff. Try
replacement parts you have in stock, then go from there replacing the
cheapest components first before trying to replace the more costly ones.

What manufacturer optic are you using, and what sort of media specifically?

Matt Harris|Infrastructure Lead Engineer
816-256-5446|Direct
Looking for something?
Helpdesk Portal|Email Support|Billing Portal
We build and deliver end-to-end IT solutions.

Re: 100g PCS Errors

[J. Hellenthal via NANOG]

Id hope by this point you’ve already reseated not only the card but the 
connection to the card as well ?.

Possibly a faulty card.

> On Aug 19, 2020, at 07:46, Nicholas Warren  wrote:
> 
> We've got a 100g qsfp in an mx204 that has 1207 bit errors and 29666 errored 
> blocks after 24 hours of just being linked up...
> I would assume this is not normal behavior, but I haven't used 100g before. 
> Do others see high error rates on their 100g optics?


-- 

J. Hellenthal

The fact that there's a highway to Hell but only a stairway to Heaven says a 
lot about anticipated traffic volume.








smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: 100g PCS Errors

[Daniel Jurado]

 
 Could it be dirty fiber?-- Sent from my Android phone with mail.com Mail. Please excuse my brevity.On 8/19/20, 10:01 AM Nicholas Warren  wrote:

  We've got a 100g qsfp in an mx204 that has 1207 bit errors and 29666 errored blocks after 24 hours of just being linked up...
   I would assume this is not normal behavior, but I haven't used 100g before. Do others see high error rates on their 100g optics?
  
 

<>

100g PCS Errors

[Nicholas Warren]

We've got a 100g qsfp in an mx204 that has 1207 bit errors and 29666 errored 
blocks after 24 hours of just being linked up...
I would assume this is not normal behavior, but I haven't used 100g before. Do 
others see high error rates on their 100g optics?