Mailing List Archive

QFX CRB
Does anyone use EVPN-VXLAN in the Centrally-Routed and Bridging topology?
I have two spine switches and two leaf switches, when I use the
virtual-gateway in active / active mode in the spines, the servers
connected only in leaf1 have a large increase in IRQ's, generating
higher CPU consumption in the servers.
I did a test by deactivating spine2 and leaving only the gateway
spine1, and the IRQ was zeroed out.
Did anyone happen to go through this?
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: QFX CRB [ In reply to ]
Can you show your irb and protocols evpn configuration please

Nitzan

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Cristian Cardoso <
cristian.cardoso11@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does anyone use EVPN-VXLAN in the Centrally-Routed and Bridging topology?
> I have two spine switches and two leaf switches, when I use the
> virtual-gateway in active / active mode in the spines, the servers
> connected only in leaf1 have a large increase in IRQ's, generating
> higher CPU consumption in the servers.
> I did a test by deactivating spine2 and leaving only the gateway
> spine1, and the IRQ was zeroed out.
> Did anyone happen to go through this?
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: QFX CRB [ In reply to ]
> show configuration protocols evpn
vni-options {
vni 810 {
vrf-target target:888:888;
}
vni 815 {
vrf-target target:888:888;
}
vni 821 {
vrf-target target:888:888;
}
vni 822 {
vrf-target target:888:888;
}
vni 827 {
vrf-target target:888:888;
}
vni 830 {
vrf-target target:888:888;
}
vni 832 {
vrf-target target:888:888;
}
vni 910 {
vrf-target target:666:666;
}
vni 915 {
vrf-target target:666:666;
}
vni 921 {
vrf-target target:666:666;
}
vni 922 {
vrf-target target:666:666;
}
vni 927 {
vrf-target target:666:666;
}
vni 930 {
vrf-target target:666:666;
}
vni 932 {
vrf-target target:666:666;
}
vni 4018 {
vrf-target target:4018:4018;
}
}
encapsulation vxlan;
default-gateway no-gateway-community;
extended-vni-list all;


An example of configuring the interfaces follows, all follow this
pattern with more or less IP's.
> show configuration interfaces irb.810
proxy-macip-advertisement;
virtual-gateway-accept-data;
family inet {
mtu 9000;
address 10.19.11.253/22 {
preferred;
virtual-gateway-address 10.19.8.1;
}
}

Em ter., 10 de nov. de 2020 às 15:16, Nitzan Tzelniker
<nitzan.tzelniker@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> Can you show your irb and protocols evpn configuration please
>
> Nitzan
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Cristian Cardoso <cristian.cardoso11@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone use EVPN-VXLAN in the Centrally-Routed and Bridging topology?
>> I have two spine switches and two leaf switches, when I use the
>> virtual-gateway in active / active mode in the spines, the servers
>> connected only in leaf1 have a large increase in IRQ's, generating
>> higher CPU consumption in the servers.
>> I did a test by deactivating spine2 and leaving only the gateway
>> spine1, and the IRQ was zeroed out.
>> Did anyone happen to go through this?
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: QFX CRB [ In reply to ]
Looks ok to me
Which junos version you are running ? and which devices ?
Did you capture on the servers to see what is the traffic that causes the
high CPU utilization ?


On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 9:07 PM Cristian Cardoso <
cristian.cardoso11@gmail.com> wrote:

> > show configuration protocols evpn
> vni-options {
> vni 810 {
> vrf-target target:888:888;
> }
> vni 815 {
> vrf-target target:888:888;
> }
> vni 821 {
> vrf-target target:888:888;
> }
> vni 822 {
> vrf-target target:888:888;
> }
> vni 827 {
> vrf-target target:888:888;
> }
> vni 830 {
> vrf-target target:888:888;
> }
> vni 832 {
> vrf-target target:888:888;
> }
> vni 910 {
> vrf-target target:666:666;
> }
> vni 915 {
> vrf-target target:666:666;
> }
> vni 921 {
> vrf-target target:666:666;
> }
> vni 922 {
> vrf-target target:666:666;
> }
> vni 927 {
> vrf-target target:666:666;
> }
> vni 930 {
> vrf-target target:666:666;
> }
> vni 932 {
> vrf-target target:666:666;
> }
> vni 4018 {
> vrf-target target:4018:4018;
> }
> }
> encapsulation vxlan;
> default-gateway no-gateway-community;
> extended-vni-list all;
>
>
> An example of configuring the interfaces follows, all follow this
> pattern with more or less IP's.
> > show configuration interfaces irb.810
> proxy-macip-advertisement;
> virtual-gateway-accept-data;
> family inet {
> mtu 9000;
> address 10.19.11.253/22 {
> preferred;
> virtual-gateway-address 10.19.8.1;
> }
> }
>
> Em ter., 10 de nov. de 2020 às 15:16, Nitzan Tzelniker
> <nitzan.tzelniker@gmail.com> escreveu:
> >
> > Can you show your irb and protocols evpn configuration please
> >
> > Nitzan
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Cristian Cardoso <
> cristian.cardoso11@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Does anyone use EVPN-VXLAN in the Centrally-Routed and Bridging
> topology?
> >> I have two spine switches and two leaf switches, when I use the
> >> virtual-gateway in active / active mode in the spines, the servers
> >> connected only in leaf1 have a large increase in IRQ's, generating
> >> higher CPU consumption in the servers.
> >> I did a test by deactivating spine2 and leaving only the gateway
> >> spine1, and the IRQ was zeroed out.
> >> Did anyone happen to go through this?
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: QFX CRB [ In reply to ]
I running 19.1R2.8 version on Junos.
Today I was in contact with Juniper support about a route depletion
problem and it seems to be related to the IRQs problem.
When the IPv4 / IPv6 routes are exhausted in the LTM table, the IRQ
increment begins.
I did an analysis of the packages trafficked on the servers, but I
found nothing out of the ordinary.

Em ter., 10 de nov. de 2020 às 17:47, Nitzan Tzelniker
<nitzan.tzelniker@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> Looks ok to me
> Which junos version you are running ? and which devices ?
> Did you capture on the servers to see what is the traffic that causes the high CPU utilization ?
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 9:07 PM Cristian Cardoso <cristian.cardoso11@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > show configuration protocols evpn
>> vni-options {
>> vni 810 {
>> vrf-target target:888:888;
>> }
>> vni 815 {
>> vrf-target target:888:888;
>> }
>> vni 821 {
>> vrf-target target:888:888;
>> }
>> vni 822 {
>> vrf-target target:888:888;
>> }
>> vni 827 {
>> vrf-target target:888:888;
>> }
>> vni 830 {
>> vrf-target target:888:888;
>> }
>> vni 832 {
>> vrf-target target:888:888;
>> }
>> vni 910 {
>> vrf-target target:666:666;
>> }
>> vni 915 {
>> vrf-target target:666:666;
>> }
>> vni 921 {
>> vrf-target target:666:666;
>> }
>> vni 922 {
>> vrf-target target:666:666;
>> }
>> vni 927 {
>> vrf-target target:666:666;
>> }
>> vni 930 {
>> vrf-target target:666:666;
>> }
>> vni 932 {
>> vrf-target target:666:666;
>> }
>> vni 4018 {
>> vrf-target target:4018:4018;
>> }
>> }
>> encapsulation vxlan;
>> default-gateway no-gateway-community;
>> extended-vni-list all;
>>
>>
>> An example of configuring the interfaces follows, all follow this
>> pattern with more or less IP's.
>> > show configuration interfaces irb.810
>> proxy-macip-advertisement;
>> virtual-gateway-accept-data;
>> family inet {
>> mtu 9000;
>> address 10.19.11.253/22 {
>> preferred;
>> virtual-gateway-address 10.19.8.1;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Em ter., 10 de nov. de 2020 às 15:16, Nitzan Tzelniker
>> <nitzan.tzelniker@gmail.com> escreveu:
>> >
>> > Can you show your irb and protocols evpn configuration please
>> >
>> > Nitzan
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Cristian Cardoso <cristian.cardoso11@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Does anyone use EVPN-VXLAN in the Centrally-Routed and Bridging topology?
>> >> I have two spine switches and two leaf switches, when I use the
>> >> virtual-gateway in active / active mode in the spines, the servers
>> >> connected only in leaf1 have a large increase in IRQ's, generating
>> >> higher CPU consumption in the servers.
>> >> I did a test by deactivating spine2 and leaving only the gateway
>> >> spine1, and the IRQ was zeroed out.
>> >> Did anyone happen to go through this?
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: QFX CRB [ In reply to ]
How are you measuring IRQ on the servers? If it's network related IRQs, it
should be seen during a packet capture.

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:40 PM Cristian Cardoso <
cristian.cardoso11@gmail.com> wrote:

> I running 19.1R2.8 version on Junos.
> Today I was in contact with Juniper support about a route depletion
> problem and it seems to be related to the IRQs problem.
> When the IPv4 / IPv6 routes are exhausted in the LTM table, the IRQ
> increment begins.
> I did an analysis of the packages trafficked on the servers, but I
> found nothing out of the ordinary.
>
> Em ter., 10 de nov. de 2020 às 17:47, Nitzan Tzelniker
> <nitzan.tzelniker@gmail.com> escreveu:
> >
> > Looks ok to me
> > Which junos version you are running ? and which devices ?
> > Did you capture on the servers to see what is the traffic that causes
> the high CPU utilization ?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 9:07 PM Cristian Cardoso <
> cristian.cardoso11@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > show configuration protocols evpn
> >> vni-options {
> >> vni 810 {
> >> vrf-target target:888:888;
> >> }
> >> vni 815 {
> >> vrf-target target:888:888;
> >> }
> >> vni 821 {
> >> vrf-target target:888:888;
> >> }
> >> vni 822 {
> >> vrf-target target:888:888;
> >> }
> >> vni 827 {
> >> vrf-target target:888:888;
> >> }
> >> vni 830 {
> >> vrf-target target:888:888;
> >> }
> >> vni 832 {
> >> vrf-target target:888:888;
> >> }
> >> vni 910 {
> >> vrf-target target:666:666;
> >> }
> >> vni 915 {
> >> vrf-target target:666:666;
> >> }
> >> vni 921 {
> >> vrf-target target:666:666;
> >> }
> >> vni 922 {
> >> vrf-target target:666:666;
> >> }
> >> vni 927 {
> >> vrf-target target:666:666;
> >> }
> >> vni 930 {
> >> vrf-target target:666:666;
> >> }
> >> vni 932 {
> >> vrf-target target:666:666;
> >> }
> >> vni 4018 {
> >> vrf-target target:4018:4018;
> >> }
> >> }
> >> encapsulation vxlan;
> >> default-gateway no-gateway-community;
> >> extended-vni-list all;
> >>
> >>
> >> An example of configuring the interfaces follows, all follow this
> >> pattern with more or less IP's.
> >> > show configuration interfaces irb.810
> >> proxy-macip-advertisement;
> >> virtual-gateway-accept-data;
> >> family inet {
> >> mtu 9000;
> >> address 10.19.11.253/22 {
> >> preferred;
> >> virtual-gateway-address 10.19.8.1;
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
> >> Em ter., 10 de nov. de 2020 às 15:16, Nitzan Tzelniker
> >> <nitzan.tzelniker@gmail.com> escreveu:
> >> >
> >> > Can you show your irb and protocols evpn configuration please
> >> >
> >> > Nitzan
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Cristian Cardoso <
> cristian.cardoso11@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Does anyone use EVPN-VXLAN in the Centrally-Routed and Bridging
> topology?
> >> >> I have two spine switches and two leaf switches, when I use the
> >> >> virtual-gateway in active / active mode in the spines, the servers
> >> >> connected only in leaf1 have a large increase in IRQ's, generating
> >> >> higher CPU consumption in the servers.
> >> >> I did a test by deactivating spine2 and leaving only the gateway
> >> >> spine1, and the IRQ was zeroed out.
> >> >> Did anyone happen to go through this?
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> >> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
Re: QFX CRB [ In reply to ]
When there was an exhaustion of IPv4 LPM routes in spine2, I noticed a
greater increase in IRQs. I analyzed tcpdump and found nothing strange
on the server itself.
It reduces the L3 routes sent to the spines and released more slots in
the L2 profile below.

Profile active: l2-profile-three
Type Max Used Free % free
----------------------------------------------------
IPv4 Host 147456 1389 144923 98.28
IPv4 LPM 24576 18108 6286 25.58
IPv4 Mcast 73728 0 72462 98.28

IPv6 Host 73728 572 72462 98.28
IPv6 LPM(< 64) 12288 91 3143 25.58
IPv6 LPM(> 64) 2048 7 2041 99.66
IPv6 Mcast 36864 0 36231 98.28

Em qua., 11 de nov. de 2020 às 23:36, Laurent Dumont
<laurentfdumont@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> How are you measuring IRQ on the servers? If it's network related IRQs, it should be seen during a packet capture.
>
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 4:40 PM Cristian Cardoso <cristian.cardoso11@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I running 19.1R2.8 version on Junos.
>> Today I was in contact with Juniper support about a route depletion
>> problem and it seems to be related to the IRQs problem.
>> When the IPv4 / IPv6 routes are exhausted in the LTM table, the IRQ
>> increment begins.
>> I did an analysis of the packages trafficked on the servers, but I
>> found nothing out of the ordinary.
>>
>> Em ter., 10 de nov. de 2020 às 17:47, Nitzan Tzelniker
>> <nitzan.tzelniker@gmail.com> escreveu:
>> >
>> > Looks ok to me
>> > Which junos version you are running ? and which devices ?
>> > Did you capture on the servers to see what is the traffic that causes the high CPU utilization ?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 9:07 PM Cristian Cardoso <cristian.cardoso11@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > show configuration protocols evpn
>> >> vni-options {
>> >> vni 810 {
>> >> vrf-target target:888:888;
>> >> }
>> >> vni 815 {
>> >> vrf-target target:888:888;
>> >> }
>> >> vni 821 {
>> >> vrf-target target:888:888;
>> >> }
>> >> vni 822 {
>> >> vrf-target target:888:888;
>> >> }
>> >> vni 827 {
>> >> vrf-target target:888:888;
>> >> }
>> >> vni 830 {
>> >> vrf-target target:888:888;
>> >> }
>> >> vni 832 {
>> >> vrf-target target:888:888;
>> >> }
>> >> vni 910 {
>> >> vrf-target target:666:666;
>> >> }
>> >> vni 915 {
>> >> vrf-target target:666:666;
>> >> }
>> >> vni 921 {
>> >> vrf-target target:666:666;
>> >> }
>> >> vni 922 {
>> >> vrf-target target:666:666;
>> >> }
>> >> vni 927 {
>> >> vrf-target target:666:666;
>> >> }
>> >> vni 930 {
>> >> vrf-target target:666:666;
>> >> }
>> >> vni 932 {
>> >> vrf-target target:666:666;
>> >> }
>> >> vni 4018 {
>> >> vrf-target target:4018:4018;
>> >> }
>> >> }
>> >> encapsulation vxlan;
>> >> default-gateway no-gateway-community;
>> >> extended-vni-list all;
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> An example of configuring the interfaces follows, all follow this
>> >> pattern with more or less IP's.
>> >> > show configuration interfaces irb.810
>> >> proxy-macip-advertisement;
>> >> virtual-gateway-accept-data;
>> >> family inet {
>> >> mtu 9000;
>> >> address 10.19.11.253/22 {
>> >> preferred;
>> >> virtual-gateway-address 10.19.8.1;
>> >> }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> Em ter., 10 de nov. de 2020 às 15:16, Nitzan Tzelniker
>> >> <nitzan.tzelniker@gmail.com> escreveu:
>> >> >
>> >> > Can you show your irb and protocols evpn configuration please
>> >> >
>> >> > Nitzan
>> >> >
>> >> > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 3:26 PM Cristian Cardoso <cristian.cardoso11@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Does anyone use EVPN-VXLAN in the Centrally-Routed and Bridging topology?
>> >> >> I have two spine switches and two leaf switches, when I use the
>> >> >> virtual-gateway in active / active mode in the spines, the servers
>> >> >> connected only in leaf1 have a large increase in IRQ's, generating
>> >> >> higher CPU consumption in the servers.
>> >> >> I did a test by deactivating spine2 and leaving only the gateway
>> >> >> spine1, and the IRQ was zeroed out.
>> >> >> Did anyone happen to go through this?
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>> >> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>> _______________________________________________
>> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
_______________________________________________
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp