Mailing List Archive: Cisco: NSP

Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

gal.9430 at googlemail

May 23, 2012, 10:53 PM

Post #26 of 44 (1074 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

I don't run QoS on this box but Netflow. Will disable the flows and
see what happens.

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Matlock, Kenneth L
<MatlockK [at] exempla> wrote:
> The problem with a 1 minute interval is that you can EASILY be bursting well above that for short periods of time. remember that 80-100Mbps is an average over the entire 1 minute.
>
> Are you running QoS or Netflow on this box?
>
> Ken
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck on behalf of gal.9430 [at] googlemail
> Sent: Wed 5/23/2012 3:24 PM
> To: Edward Salonia
> Cc: cisco-nsp [at] puck
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface
>
>
>
>> Are you getting bursts of traffic that might not register on traffic graphs polling at 5 minute intervals?
>
> No, I don't think so. Burst traffic never exceeds 80-100 Mbps. We're
> polling in a 1 min interval.
>
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Edward Salonia
> <Edward.Salonia [at] ipsoft> wrote:
>> Drops and overruns... Sounds like you are overloading your port buffer. Are you getting bursts of traffic that might not register on traffic graphs polling at 5 minute intervals?
>>
>> - Ed
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of gal.9430 [at] googlemail
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:00 PM
>> To: Sigurbjörn Birkir Lárusson
>> Cc: cisco-nsp [at] puck
>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface
>>
>>> Is this the only traffic going through this 7200?
>>
>> No. Gi0/1 is connected via 2960G to another router (iBGP). Gi0/2 is
>> connected to an eBGP peer
>> who sends a full table.
>>
>>> How is your scheduler allocate set on the 7200...
>>
>> Default value, not changed.
>>
>>> ...have you tried a new cable and cleaning the optics?
>>
>> New cable: yes
>> Cleaning the optics: no
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Sigurbjörn Birkir Lárusson
>> <sigurbjornl [at] vodafone> wrote:
>>> Is this the only traffic going through this 7200?
>>>
>>> How is your scheduler allocate set on the 7200, have you tried a new cable
>>> and cleaning the optics?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Sibbi
>>>
>>> On 23.5.2012 19:33, "gal.9430 [at] googlemail" <gal.9430 [at] googlemail>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>thanks all for the input.
>>>>
>>>>Increasing the hold-queue (from default to 100) doesn't seem to help at
>>>>all:
>>>>
>>>>GigabitEthernet0/1 is up, line protocol is up
>>>> Hardware is BCM1250 Internal MAC, address is 0006.52f4.d81b (bia
>>>>0006.52f4.d81b)
>>>> Internet address is x.x.x.x/28
>>>> MTU 1500 bytes, BW 1000000 Kbit/sec, DLY 10 usec,
>>>> reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 2/255
>>>> Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set
>>>> Keepalive set (10 sec)
>>>> Full-duplex, 1000Mb/s, link type is autonegotiation, media type is SX
>>>> output flow-control is XON, input flow-control is XON
>>>> ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00
>>>> Last input 00:00:00, output 00:00:00, output hang never
>>>> Last clearing of "show interface" counters 02:17:11
>>>> Input queue: 0/100/742/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0
>>>> Queueing strategy: fifo
>>>> Output queue: 0/40 (size/max)
>>>> 5 minute input rate 10536000 bits/sec, 1824 packets/sec
>>>> 5 minute output rate 6813000 bits/sec, 2121 packets/sec
>>>> 11770910 packets input, 2922271410 bytes, 0 no buffer
>>>> Received 215 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles
>>>> 341 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 341 overrun, 0 ignored
>>>> 0 watchdog, 4242 multicast, 0 pause input
>>>> 0 input packets with dribble condition detected
>>>> 14975201 packets output, 1820911878 bytes, 0 underruns
>>>> 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets
>>>> 137 unknown protocol drops
>>>> 0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred
>>>> 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier, 0 pause output
>>>> 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out
>>>>
>>>>Will go from 100 to 150 and see whats happen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Phil Mayers <p.mayers [at] imperial>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> On 05/23/2012 08:18 PM, Chris Gotstein wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> %Warning: portfast should only be enabled on ports connected to a
>>>>>>single
>>>>>> host. Connecting hubs, concentrators, switches, bridges, etcS to this
>>>>>> interface when portfast is enabled, can cause temporary bridging loops.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My understanding of this was a router would be included as well since
>>>>>> it's used to connect multiple hosts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't enable portfast, you have to suffer the STP state
>>>>>transitions,
>>>>> which lead to delays in traffic forwarding after link-up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Portfast basically means: "This port is unlikely to be connected to
>>>>>another
>>>>> bridge or hub, so skip the LISTENING/LEARNING transitions and jump
>>>>>straight
>>>>> to forwarding; if it goes wrong, STP will close the loop shortly."
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not magic; and it should be enabled on all host ports. Routers are
>>>>> hosts, at layer2.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>>>>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
>>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>>>>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
> *** Exempla Confidentiality Notice *** The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any other dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. *** Exempla Confidentiality Notice ***
>

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

p.mayers at imperial

May 24, 2012, 1:31 AM

Post #27 of 44 (1071 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

On 05/24/2012 06:16 AM, David Farrell wrote:
> On 23/05/2012 20:27, Phil Mayers wrote:
>> If you don't enable portfast, you have to suffer the STP state
>> transitions, which lead to delays in traffic forwarding after link-up.
> I wondered what people's feelings/experiences were with respect to
> completely disabling STP where appropriate?
>
> I have 100% control over topology and some PtP dotq trunk links, I
> thought of placing 'spanning-tree bpdufilter enable' rather than
> 'portfast trunk' on these ports. I have no need to to send or receive
> STP BPDUs on these ports, even though the underlying technology is
> Ethernet. Hosts are a mixture of L3 switches and routers, but
> configuration should limit the extent of the broadcast domains in
> question to exist only on the PtP link.

We run PVST, and do indeed disable STP completely on VLANs which are
used for directed routed ptp links i.e. are only on one port, and only
make one hop.

We don't disable it on the whole port because often the port is carrying
other vlans which are PVST enabled (e.g. between an HSRP master&slave /
STP primary&secondary root switch pair).

We do have some links which carry a routed p2p only, but even then we
just disable STP on the vlan, not the port.

Obviously if you're running MST or classic STP this per-vlan approach
isn't available, and you can only do per-port.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

peter at rathlev

May 24, 2012, 1:56 AM

Post #28 of 44 (1067 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 13:15 -0500, Chris Gotstein wrote:
> It's probably not going to address the overrun issue, but from a best
> practices stand point, it should not be enabled on interfaces that
> connected to other connected devices, ie a router or switch.

To recap what others have said: Portfast is IMO always a good idea when
connecting to anything that does not create a L2 loop, i.e. a bridge. We
use Portfast and BPDU Guard on all links towards routers. That also
covers trunks toward a 6500 swouter if it's a "no switchport" with
subinterfaces. Not using Portfast means that many failover situations
take forever to converge.

On the other hand we never use Portfast unless we can also enable BPDU
Guard. Otherwise you're not protected from someone accidentally
connecting the port to a switch.

BPDU Filter is IMO almost always a bad thing. There are some very
special circumstances where it's warranted, but they are few and far
between.

--
Peter

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

eh at solnet

May 24, 2012, 2:13 AM

Post #29 of 44 (1071 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

Hi

After the port-fast discussion back to your original question. The first
thing to look is the interface controller (show controller , show ip
interface) and the logging to make sure I don't have speed/duplex or
flow-control problems.

Second you get "unknown protocol drops" this happens mostly from cdp
packets. You send cdp from your switch but drop them on your router.

I my case I had to enable flow-control on my 3560 switch and allow pause
frames from the npe-g1. Hint: Sometimes it is more reliable to turn the
auto-neg feature off

Regards
Erich

>
> NPE-G1:
> ------------
> GigabitEthernet0/1 is up, line protocol is up
> Hardware is BCM1250 Internal MAC, address is 0006.52f4.d81b (bia
> 0006.52f4.d81b)
> Internet address is x.x.x.x/28
> MTU 1500 bytes, BW 1000000 Kbit/sec, DLY 10 usec,
> reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
> Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set
> Keepalive set (10 sec)
> Full-duplex, 1000Mb/s, link type is autonegotiation, media type is SX
> output flow-control is XON, input flow-control is XON
> ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00
> Last input 00:00:00, output 00:00:00, output hang never
> Last clearing of "show interface" counters never
> Input queue: 0/75/1321/1 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0
> Queueing strategy: fifo
> Output queue: 0/40 (size/max)
> 5 minute input rate 4264000 bits/sec, 871 packets/sec
> 5 minute output rate 5859000 bits/sec, 1597 packets/sec
> 27479327 packets input, 3434822229 bytes, 0 no buffer
> Received 941 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles
> 989 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 989 overrun, 0 ignored
> 0 watchdog, 17119 multicast, 0 pause input
> 0 input packets with dribble condition detected
> 43616309 packets output, 2243854018 bytes, 0 underruns
> 5 output errors, 0 collisions, 4 interface resets
> 561 unknown protocol drops
> 0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred
> 5 lost carrier, 0 no carrier, 0 pause output
> 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

saku at ytti

May 24, 2012, 2:28 AM

Post #30 of 44 (1067 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

On (2012-05-24 10:56 +0200), Peter Rathlev wrote:

> connecting to anything that does not create a L2 loop, i.e. a bridge. We
> use Portfast and BPDU Guard on all links towards routers. That also

This is incredibly dangerous. Leak one BPDU from one customer EVPN
somewhere, and all customers are down in PE facing that metro.
PE<->Metro definitely should be BPDUfilter.

On customer ports, BPDUguard is apt, which you can enable per default for
edge/portfast ports, so you only need to configure porfast.

--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

sigurbjornl at vodafone

May 24, 2012, 4:47 AM

Post #31 of 44 (1061 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

On 24.5.2012 09:28, "Saku Ytti" <saku [at] ytti> wrote:

>On (2012-05-24 10:56 +0200), Peter Rathlev wrote:
>
>> connecting to anything that does not create a L2 loop, i.e. a bridge. We
>> use Portfast and BPDU Guard on all links towards routers. That also
>
>This is incredibly dangerous. Leak one BPDU from one customer EVPN
>somewhere, and all customers are down in PE facing that metro.
>PE<->Metro definitely should be BPDUfilter.
>
>On customer ports, BPDUguard is apt, which you can enable per default for
>edge/portfast ports, so you only need to configure porfast.

We're in complete agreement

Kind regards,
Sibbi
>

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

MatlockK at exempla

May 24, 2012, 5:19 AM

Post #32 of 44 (1069 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

Ahh, Netflow....

I recently had a similar issue with a 7201 (which is effectively a NPE-G2). Keep in mind that a 7200 series platform is 100% software-based.

And NPE-G2 is rated for 1024Mb/sec. This is aggregate throughput, meaning you can do 1024mb/sec in one direction, or 512mb/sec each direction before overrunning the box. This is with no services running, static routes, etc. Talked to my SE and found out that performance with QoS drops to 512mb/sec aggregate, and with Netflow it dropped to 256mb/sec. (aggregate).

Now, officially the NPE-G2 is twice as fast as an NPE-G1, So extrapolating that out means best-case you can expect peak performance of 512mb/sec, 256mb/sec with QoS, and 128mb/sec with just Netflow enabled. And with the input RX ring on those boxes being only 128 deep they are VERY sensitive to CPU spikes/latencies (such as when enabling services such as Netflow or QoS). Unfortunately that's not configurable and a hardware limitation of the chassis.

In our case we wound up replacing the 7201's with ASR1k's to get the throughput we needed.

Netflow is very handy, but a big performance hit on the 7200 line.

Hope this points you in the right direction!

Ken

________________________________

From: gal.9430 [at] googlemail [mailto:gal.9430 [at] googlemail]
Sent: Wed 5/23/2012 11:53 PM
To: Matlock, Kenneth L
Cc: Edward Salonia; cisco-nsp [at] puck
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface

I don't run QoS on this box but Netflow. Will disable the flows and
see what happens.

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Matlock, Kenneth L
<MatlockK [at] exempla> wrote:
> The problem with a 1 minute interval is that you can EASILY be bursting well above that for short periods of time. remember that 80-100Mbps is an average over the entire 1 minute.
>
> Are you running QoS or Netflow on this box?
>
> Ken
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck on behalf of gal.9430 [at] googlemail
> Sent: Wed 5/23/2012 3:24 PM
> To: Edward Salonia
> Cc: cisco-nsp [at] puck
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface
>
>
>
>> Are you getting bursts of traffic that might not register on traffic graphs polling at 5 minute intervals?
>
> No, I don't think so. Burst traffic never exceeds 80-100 Mbps. We're
> polling in a 1 min interval.
>
>
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Edward Salonia
> <Edward.Salonia [at] ipsoft> wrote:
>> Drops and overruns... Sounds like you are overloading your port buffer. Are you getting bursts of traffic that might not register on traffic graphs polling at 5 minute intervals?
>>
>> - Ed
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of gal.9430 [at] googlemail
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:00 PM
>> To: Sigurbjörn Birkir Lárusson
>> Cc: cisco-nsp [at] puck
>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface
>>
>>> Is this the only traffic going through this 7200?
>>
>> No. Gi0/1 is connected via 2960G to another router (iBGP). Gi0/2 is
>> connected to an eBGP peer
>> who sends a full table.
>>
>>> How is your scheduler allocate set on the 7200...
>>
>> Default value, not changed.
>>
>>> ...have you tried a new cable and cleaning the optics?
>>
>> New cable: yes
>> Cleaning the optics: no
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:40 PM, Sigurbjörn Birkir Lárusson
>> <sigurbjornl [at] vodafone> wrote:
>>> Is this the only traffic going through this 7200?
>>>
>>> How is your scheduler allocate set on the 7200, have you tried a new cable
>>> and cleaning the optics?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>> Sibbi
>>>
>>> On 23.5.2012 19:33, "gal.9430 [at] googlemail" <gal.9430 [at] googlemail>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>thanks all for the input.
>>>>
>>>>Increasing the hold-queue (from default to 100) doesn't seem to help at
>>>>all:
>>>>
>>>>GigabitEthernet0/1 is up, line protocol is up
>>>> Hardware is BCM1250 Internal MAC, address is 0006.52f4.d81b (bia
>>>>0006.52f4.d81b)
>>>> Internet address is x.x.x.x/28
>>>> MTU 1500 bytes, BW 1000000 Kbit/sec, DLY 10 usec,
>>>> reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 2/255
>>>> Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set
>>>> Keepalive set (10 sec)
>>>> Full-duplex, 1000Mb/s, link type is autonegotiation, media type is SX
>>>> output flow-control is XON, input flow-control is XON
>>>> ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00
>>>> Last input 00:00:00, output 00:00:00, output hang never
>>>> Last clearing of "show interface" counters 02:17:11
>>>> Input queue: 0/100/742/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0
>>>> Queueing strategy: fifo
>>>> Output queue: 0/40 (size/max)
>>>> 5 minute input rate 10536000 bits/sec, 1824 packets/sec
>>>> 5 minute output rate 6813000 bits/sec, 2121 packets/sec
>>>> 11770910 packets input, 2922271410 bytes, 0 no buffer
>>>> Received 215 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles
>>>> 341 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 341 overrun, 0 ignored
>>>> 0 watchdog, 4242 multicast, 0 pause input
>>>> 0 input packets with dribble condition detected
>>>> 14975201 packets output, 1820911878 bytes, 0 underruns
>>>> 0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets
>>>> 137 unknown protocol drops
>>>> 0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred
>>>> 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier, 0 pause output
>>>> 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out
>>>>
>>>>Will go from 100 to 150 and see whats happen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Phil Mayers <p.mayers [at] imperial>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> On 05/23/2012 08:18 PM, Chris Gotstein wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> %Warning: portfast should only be enabled on ports connected to a
>>>>>>single
>>>>>> host. Connecting hubs, concentrators, switches, bridges, etcS to this
>>>>>> interface when portfast is enabled, can cause temporary bridging loops.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My understanding of this was a router would be included as well since
>>>>>> it's used to connect multiple hosts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you don't enable portfast, you have to suffer the STP state
>>>>>transitions,
>>>>> which lead to delays in traffic forwarding after link-up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Portfast basically means: "This port is unlikely to be connected to
>>>>>another
>>>>> bridge or hub, so skip the LISTENING/LEARNING transitions and jump
>>>>>straight
>>>>> to forwarding; if it goes wrong, STP will close the loop shortly."
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not magic; and it should be enabled on all host ports. Routers are
>>>>> hosts, at layer2.
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
>>>>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>>>>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
>>>>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>>>>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>
> *** Exempla Confidentiality Notice *** The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any other dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. *** Exempla Confidentiality Notice ***
>

*** Exempla Confidentiality Notice *** The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any other dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. *** Exempla Confidentiality Notice ***

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

mark.tinka at seacom

May 24, 2012, 5:30 AM

Post #33 of 44 (1062 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

On Thursday, May 24, 2012 02:19:39 PM Matlock, Kenneth L
wrote:

> I recently had a similar issue with a 7201 (which is
> effectively a NPE-G2). Keep in mind that a 7200 series
> platform is 100% software-based.

Except for the part where they said the 4th Gig-E port is a
PCI-X connection to the board and can run at line rate
independently.

Never did quite figure that one out :-).

> And NPE-G2 is rated for 1024Mb/sec. This is aggregate
> throughput, meaning you can do 1024mb/sec in one
> direction, or 512mb/sec each direction before
> overrunning the box. This is with no services running,
> static routes, etc. Talked to my SE and found out that
> performance with QoS drops to 512mb/sec aggregate, and
> with Netflow it dropped to 256mb/sec. (aggregate).

We used the NPE-G2 as a core router many, many years ago,
and extratced 950Mbps from it (aggregate) with 0% packet
loss at 91% CPU utilization. v6, v6, MPLS, IS-IS, LDP, RSVP.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

MatlockK at exempla

May 24, 2012, 5:37 AM

Post #34 of 44 (1062 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

Ha! So that 1 port can do line rate to..... the CPU? :)

And I can see getting that linerate out of the box. It's things like QoS and Netflow that really have to involve the CPU much more than simple packet forwarding.

Once you get most of those services established (such as ISIS) there's really not much for the CPU to do to maintain the table.

Ken

________________________________

From: Mark Tinka [mailto:mark.tinka [at] seacom]
Sent: Thu 5/24/2012 6:30 AM
To: cisco-nsp [at] puck
Cc: Matlock, Kenneth L; gal.9430 [at] googlemail
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface

On Thursday, May 24, 2012 02:19:39 PM Matlock, Kenneth L
wrote:

> I recently had a similar issue with a 7201 (which is
> effectively a NPE-G2). Keep in mind that a 7200 series
> platform is 100% software-based.

Except for the part where they said the 4th Gig-E port is a
PCI-X connection to the board and can run at line rate
independently.

Never did quite figure that one out :-).

> And NPE-G2 is rated for 1024Mb/sec. This is aggregate
> throughput, meaning you can do 1024mb/sec in one
> direction, or 512mb/sec each direction before
> overrunning the box. This is with no services running,
> static routes, etc. Talked to my SE and found out that
> performance with QoS drops to 512mb/sec aggregate, and
> with Netflow it dropped to 256mb/sec. (aggregate).

We used the NPE-G2 as a core router many, many years ago,
and extratced 950Mbps from it (aggregate) with 0% packet
loss at 91% CPU utilization. v6, v6, MPLS, IS-IS, LDP, RSVP.

Mark.

*** Exempla Confidentiality Notice *** The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any other dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. *** Exempla Confidentiality Notice ***

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

gert at greenie

May 24, 2012, 5:37 AM

Post #35 of 44 (1064 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

Hi,

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:38:49PM +0200, adam vitkovsky wrote:
> What do you think about enabling port-fast on trunks between switches that
> are connected in a star topology (no redundant links) and running MST

I do not run MST anywhere, so I'm not sure how portfast and MST interact.

OTOH, if you connect switches with *RSTP* together, the links will be
up and forwarding in very short time anyway, so portfast won't make
much difference.

> I'm asking because we have problems with TCN and following CAM table flushes
> when ports flap
> We suspect that the CAM table flushes have negative effects on IPTV streams
> There was the idea of enabling port-fast on trunks since the topology is a
> cascaded star and when a segment goes offline there's no other way to get to
> it -so no need for the whole instance/domain to suffer from topology change
> And in case the someone creates an artificial loop MST should take care of
> it as soon as it hears the first bpdu right

Well, if you are *sure* your topology has no loops, then just turn off
spanning tree. No TCNs.

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert [at] greenie
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert [at] net
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

gert at greenie

May 24, 2012, 5:39 AM

Post #36 of 44 (1066 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

Hi,

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 02:30:59PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> > I recently had a similar issue with a 7201 (which is
> > effectively a NPE-G2). Keep in mind that a 7200 series
> > platform is 100% software-based.
>
> Except for the part where they said the 4th Gig-E port is a
> PCI-X connection to the board and can run at line rate
> independently.
>
> Never did quite figure that one out :-).

Well, I'd interpret that as "it is not connected to the PCI bus, so
won't eat bandwidth points from there". Not as "will do distributed
anything".

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert [at] greenie
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert [at] net

mark.tinka at seacom

May 24, 2012, 5:42 AM

Post #37 of 44 (1067 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

On Thursday, May 24, 2012 02:37:47 PM Gert Doering wrote:

> OTOH, if you connect switches with *RSTP* together, the
> links will be up and forwarding in very short time
> anyway, so portfast won't make much difference.

Aye - which is why we run RSTP everywhere we need STP
anyway.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

mark.tinka at seacom

May 24, 2012, 5:44 AM

Post #38 of 44 (1069 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

On Thursday, May 24, 2012 02:39:20 PM Gert Doering wrote:

> Well, I'd interpret that as "it is not connected to the
> PCI bus, so won't eat bandwidth points from there". Not
> as "will do distributed anything".

Right, that was my interpretation too, but for me, each port
performed the same, so it was a non-starter.

Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

gert at greenie

May 24, 2012, 5:54 AM

Post #39 of 44 (1065 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

Hi,

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 02:44:42PM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
> On Thursday, May 24, 2012 02:39:20 PM Gert Doering wrote:
>
> > Well, I'd interpret that as "it is not connected to the
> > PCI bus, so won't eat bandwidth points from there". Not
> > as "will do distributed anything".
>
> Right, that was my interpretation too, but for me, each port
> performed the same, so it was a non-starter.

If I'm not mistaken, the other 3 GE ports are directly connected
to the CPU on the SoC - so "no bus at all".

The difference would be "... if compared to a PA-GE sitting on the
classic PCI bus".

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert [at] greenie
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert [at] net

mark.tinka at seacom

May 24, 2012, 5:58 AM

Post #40 of 44 (1062 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

On Thursday, May 24, 2012 02:54:03 PM Gert Doering wrote:

> If I'm not mistaken, the other 3 GE ports are directly
> connected to the CPU on the SoC - so "no bus at all".

That's right.

> The difference would be "... if compared to a PA-GE
> sitting on the classic PCI bus".

Agree, but given the overall throughput of the box is just
under 1Gbps, I suppose it all works out considering not lal
4x ports were full at any one time :-).

Mark.
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

chuckchurch at gmail

May 24, 2012, 6:17 AM

Post #41 of 44 (1064 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

Regarding that IPTV issue, there is a Cisco switch option to not flush IGMP
table mappings when a TCN goes out, that accomplishes the same thing as
portfast, but without the (slight) risk of using that:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst4500/12.2/31sga/configu
ration/guide/multi.html#wp1049520

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces [at] puck] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2012 5:38 AM
To: adam vitkovsky
Cc: cisco-nsp [at] puck
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface

Hi,

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 12:38:49PM +0200, adam vitkovsky wrote:
> What do you think about enabling port-fast on trunks between switches
> that are connected in a star topology (no redundant links) and running
> MST

I do not run MST anywhere, so I'm not sure how portfast and MST interact.

OTOH, if you connect switches with *RSTP* together, the links will be up and
forwarding in very short time anyway, so portfast won't make much
difference.

> I'm asking because we have problems with TCN and following CAM table
> flushes when ports flap We suspect that the CAM table flushes have
> negative effects on IPTV streams There was the idea of enabling
> port-fast on trunks since the topology is a cascaded star and when a
> segment goes offline there's no other way to get to it -so no need for
> the whole instance/domain to suffer from topology change And in case
> the someone creates an artificial loop MST should take care of it as
> soon as it hears the first bpdu right

Well, if you are *sure* your topology has no loops, then just turn off
spanning tree. No TCNs.

gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!

//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany
gert [at] greenie
fax: +49-89-35655025
gert [at] net
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

gal.9430 at googlemail

May 24, 2012, 6:44 AM

Post #42 of 44 (1071 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

Hi,

> After the port-fast discussion back to your original question. The first
> thing to look is the interface controller (show controller , show ip
> interface) and the logging to make sure I don't have speed/duplex or
> flow-control problems.

router2#show controller
...
Interface GigabitEthernet0/1 (idb 0x65C58CDC)
Hardware is BCM1250 Internal MAC (Revision B2/B3)
Network connection mode is AUTO
network link is up
Config is 1Gbps, Full Duplex
Selected media-type is GBIC
GBIC type is 1000BaseSX
...
...
PHY says Link is UP, Speed 1000Mbps, Full-Duplex [AUTONEG Done]
Physical Interface - GBIC
AUTONEG - Our ability is 1000M/FD Pause Capable (Asymmetric)
AUTONEG - Partner ability is 1000M/HD 1000M/FD

router2#sh ip int Gi0/1
GigabitEthernet0/1 is up, line protocol is up
Internet address is x.x.x.x/28
Broadcast address is 255.255.255.255
Address determined by non-volatile memory
MTU is 1500 bytes
Helper address is not set
Directed broadcast forwarding is disabled
Outgoing access list is not set
Inbound access list is not set
Proxy ARP is disabled
Local Proxy ARP is disabled
Security level is default
Split horizon is enabled
ICMP redirects are always sent
ICMP unreachables are always sent
ICMP mask replies are never sent
IP fast switching is enabled
IP fast switching on the same interface is disabled
IP Flow switching is disabled
IP CEF switching is enabled
IP Feature Fast switching turbo vector
IP Feature CEF switching turbo vector
IP multicast fast switching is enabled
IP multicast distributed fast switching is disabled
IP route-cache flags are Fast, CEF
Router Discovery is disabled
IP output packet accounting is disabled
IP access violation accounting is disabled
TCP/IP header compression is disabled
RTP/IP header compression is disabled
Policy routing is disabled
Network address translation is disabled
BGP Policy Mapping is disabled
WCCP Redirect outbound is disabled
WCCP Redirect inbound is disabled
WCCP Redirect exclude is disabled

Next step is to disable autonegotiation and set speed/duplex hardcoded
on both sides.

BTW, disabling netflow decreases the CPU utilization dramatically :-)

After increase the hold-queue from 100 to 150 and disabling netflow the input
errors are still alive:
(clearing the counter nearly 8 hours before)

sh int Gi0/1
GigabitEthernet0/1 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is BCM1250 Internal MAC, address is 0006.52f4.d81b (bia
0006.52f4.d81b)
Internet address is 94.103.161.235/28
MTU 1500 bytes, BW 1000000 Kbit/sec, DLY 10 usec,
reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set
Keepalive set (10 sec)
Full-duplex, 1000Mb/s, link type is autonegotiation, media type is SX
output flow-control is XON, input flow-control is XON
ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00
Last input 00:00:00, output 00:00:00, output hang never
Last clearing of "show interface" counters 07:47:20
Input queue: 0/150/2026/2 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0
Queueing strategy: fifo
Output queue: 0/40 (size/max)
5 minute input rate 6191000 bits/sec, 1385 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 7266000 bits/sec, 2079 packets/sec
40892419 packets input, 1638492851 bytes, 0 no buffer
Received 773 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles
880 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 880 overrun, 0 ignored
0 watchdog, 14448 multicast, 0 pause input
0 input packets with dribble condition detected
53498590 packets output, 3784646524 bytes, 0 underruns
0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets
467 unknown protocol drops
0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred
0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier, 0 pause output
0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out

Regards

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM, Erich Hohermuth <eh [at] solnet> wrote:
> Hi
>
> After the port-fast discussion back to your original question. The first
> thing to look is the interface controller (show controller , show ip
> interface) and the logging to make sure I don't have speed/duplex or
> flow-control problems.
>
> Second you get "unknown protocol drops" this happens mostly from cdp
> packets. You send cdp from your switch but drop them on your router.
>
> I my case I had to enable flow-control on my 3560 switch and allow pause
> frames from the npe-g1. Hint: Sometimes it is more reliable to turn the
> auto-neg feature off
>
> Regards
> Erich
>
>>
>> NPE-G1:
>> ------------
>> GigabitEthernet0/1 is up, line protocol is up
>> Hardware is BCM1250 Internal MAC, address is 0006.52f4.d81b (bia
>> 0006.52f4.d81b)
>> Internet address is x.x.x.x/28
>> MTU 1500 bytes, BW 1000000 Kbit/sec, DLY 10 usec,
>> reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
>> Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set
>> Keepalive set (10 sec)
>> Full-duplex, 1000Mb/s, link type is autonegotiation, media type is SX
>> output flow-control is XON, input flow-control is XON
>> ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00
>> Last input 00:00:00, output 00:00:00, output hang never
>> Last clearing of "show interface" counters never
>> Input queue: 0/75/1321/1 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0
>> Queueing strategy: fifo
>> Output queue: 0/40 (size/max)
>> 5 minute input rate 4264000 bits/sec, 871 packets/sec
>> 5 minute output rate 5859000 bits/sec, 1597 packets/sec
>> 27479327 packets input, 3434822229 bytes, 0 no buffer
>> Received 941 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles
>> 989 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 989 overrun, 0 ignored
>> 0 watchdog, 17119 multicast, 0 pause input
>> 0 input packets with dribble condition detected
>> 43616309 packets output, 2243854018 bytes, 0 underruns
>> 5 output errors, 0 collisions, 4 interface resets
>> 561 unknown protocol drops
>> 0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred
>> 5 lost carrier, 0 no carrier, 0 pause output
>> 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

saku at ytti

May 24, 2012, 6:48 AM

Post #43 of 44 (1057 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

On (2012-05-24 14:37 +0200), Gert Doering wrote:

> I do not run MST anywhere, so I'm not sure how portfast and MST interact.

MST with single instance is same as RSTP from this perspective. If you
don't configure non-MST participating port as edge port (or cisco term
portfast) then you are waiting 30s for permission from that port.

When all ports in switch have given permission, then the switch will give
permission to upstream.
So any non-edge port, will delay this permission for 30s. (You knew this
as you know RST, this is benefit of other).

--
++ytti
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

MatlockK at exempla

May 24, 2012, 7:33 AM

Post #44 of 44 (1057 views)
Permalink

Re: Lot of input errors on a NPE-G1 interface [In reply to]

Think about the buffering on a chassis like a 7200 like this.

You have 2 buffers on input, the RX ring (a hardware buffer), and the
input queue (a software buffer)

A packet comes in on the wire, and goes into the RX ring. That generates
a CPU interrupt. The CPU needs to finish its current task then go
address the interrupt. It takes the packet off the RX ring and puts it
into the input queue. The CPU then takes the packet from the input
queue, applies ACLs/NAT/etc to it before deciding if/how to forward it.

Now, keep in mind that a 7200 only has an RX ring of *128*. Worst-case
at 64 byte packets that's only 8192 bytes of hardware buffer space.

At 1gb/sec (say a small burst) that only gives the CPU about 60
*Microseconds* to finish what it's doing and grab that first packet off
the RX ring before the queue fills up and you get an overrun.

The only real fixes to this are

1) Even out the traffic to remove the bursts (traffic shaping upstream)
2) Decrease the CPU to let it better handle the bursts
3) Get a bigger box that does the hardware-software transfers via
hardware, not on the CPU.

You can see how much of the CPU is being taken up by a 'show proc cpu'
(the %x/%y portion) %x shows the CPU utilization, the %y shows how much
is interrupt traffic.

Ken Matlock
Network Analyst
303-467-4671
matlockk [at] exempla

*** Exempla Confidentiality Notice *** The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any other dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify me immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you. *** Exempla Confidentiality Notice ***

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp [at] puck
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads