On 20/Aug/20 08:16, Saku Ytti wrote:
> 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?
10 matches
Mail list logo
