Monday, August 3, 2020

VPLS.US 09/30/2012 802.1ag for unix

http://vpls.us/?p=780 Sun, 30 Sep 2012 18:07:58 +0000 timc
http://vpls.us/?p=780

http://www.bortzmeyer.org/ethernet-oam.html

Of course it's in french. But if you translate it...

https://noc.sara.nl/nrg/dot1ag-utils/

bash-4.2# ethping -ieth1 -l7 -c5 00:00:5e:00:01:14
Sending CFM LBM to 00:00:5e:00:01:14
Request timeout for 1878795604
Request timeout for 1878795605
Request timeout for 1878795606
Request timeout for 1878795607
bash-4.2#

and a try with the trace


bash-4.2# ethtrace -i eth1 -l 7 00:09:3d:13:f2:a0
Sending CFM LTM probe to 00:09:3d:13:f2:a0
ttl 1: LTM with id 1925342007
no replies for LTM 1925342007
ttl 2: LTM with id 1925342008
no replies for LTM 1925342008
ttl 3: LTM with id 1925342009
no replies for LTM 1925342009
ttl 4: LTM with id 1925342010
no replies for LTM 1925342010
ttl 5: LTM with id 1925342011
no replies for LTM 1925342011
ttl 6: LTM with id 1925342012
no replies for LTM 1925342012
ttl 7: LTM with id 1925342013
no replies for LTM 1925342013
ttl 8: LTM with id 1925342014
no replies for LTM 1925342014
ttl 9: LTM with id 1925342015
no replies for LTM 1925342015

]]>

780
2012-09-30 11:07:58
2012-09-30 18:07:58
open
open
odds-ends
publish
0
0
post

0



_wordbooker_thumb



_wordbooker_extract
http://www.bortzmeyer.org/ethernet-oam.html

Of course it's in french. But if you translate it...

https://noc.sara.nl/nrg/dot1ag-utils/

bash-4.2# ethping -ieth1 -l7 -c5 00:00:5e:00:01:14
Sending CFM LBM to 00:00: ...]]>


_wordbooker_options



_edit_last



_oembed_3b89bc87179a7f8c07ed3748776125d7



_oembed_6f64d583c5ce7c0fbb63f94471f0b1d7



http://vpls.us/?p=786 Tue, 02 Oct 2012 18:16:20 +0000 timc
http://vpls.us/?p=786

#!/bin/bash
echo "setmac to $1"
numbers=(`echo $1 | tr ':' ' '`)
echo ${numbers[0]}

KEY=669955aa
numbers[0]=c0
numbers[1]=ff
numbers[2]=ee
numbers[3]=c0
numbers[4]=ff
numbers[5]=ee

ethtool -E eth0 magic 0x$KEY offset 0x7e value 0x${numbers[0]}
ethtool -E eth0 magic 0x$KEY offset 0x7f value 0x${numbers[1]}
ethtool -E eth0 magic 0x$KEY offset 0x80 value 0x${numbers[2]}
ethtool -E eth0 magic 0x$KEY offset 0x81 value 0x${numbers[3]}
ethtool -E eth0 magic 0x$KEY offset 0x82 value 0x${numbers[4]}
ethtool -E eth0 magic 0x$KEY offset 0x83 value 0x${numbers[5]}

echo ethtool -E eth0 magic 0x$KEY offset 0x83 value 0x${number[5]}

Had some problems finding the the magic, but after that it was all downhill

eth1: flags=4163  mtu 1500
        inet 10.45.21.205  netmask 255.255.254.0  broadcast 10.45.21.255
        inet6 fe80::c2ff:eeff:fec0:ffee  prefixlen 64  scopeid 0x20

        ether c0:ff:ee:c0:ff:ee  txqueuelen 1000  (Ethernet)
        RX packets 43102  bytes 8804897 (8.3 MiB)
        RX errors 0  dropped 15  overruns 0  frame 0
        TX packets 7729  bytes 1102903 (1.0 MiB)
        TX errors 0  dropped 0 overruns 0  carrier 0  collisions 0
        device interrupt 16  

]]>

786
2012-10-02 11:16:20
2012-10-02 18:16:20
open
open
macs
publish
0
0
post

0


_wordbooker_thumb



_wordbooker_extract

#!/bin/bash
echo "setmac to $1"
numbers=(`echo $1 | tr ':' ' '`)
echo ${numbers[0]}

KEY=669955aa
numbers[0]=c0
numbers[1]=ff
numbers[2]=ee
numbers[3]=c0
numbers ...]]>


_wordbooker_options



_edit_last



http://vpls.us/?p=792 Thu, 04 Oct 2012 18:17:52 +0000 timc
http://vpls.us/?p=792


RFC 2544 Applicability Statement: Use on Production Networks Considered Harmful

2544 is to be considered Harmful :) oh wow, so we've been using testing procedures that are to be considered harmful. Yeah, we knew all that :P We just haven't had many other options. The new Y.1564 standard that is out from the ITU-T is going to go a long way towards rectifying a lot of the problems of testing Ethernet in the last mile between the PE and CE. However, what is really a Gem is hidden in the back of that little document. Back in Appendix I. CBS and EBS test methodology. It describes the tests that are included to be preliminary or experimental, and for informational purposes only. I'm not sure why that is, perhaps the tests really aren't applicable to a real world test and probably more geared towards the testing of lab gear? I guess that would be my initial guess as to why they weren't included in the formal document. However for the lab. OH YEAH. This is cool. E.3 basically lets the tester, run tests against the hardware buffers to determine the buffer capacity.

Let me repeat that. E.3 allows a tester to test the buffer capacity of a circuit / interface / hardware / switch, etcetra.... Line item 4 on E.3 says to test EBS.

the transmitter turns off for the smallest amount of time necessary
to ensure that the B-e token bucket is full and has overflowed by an amount
equal to or greater than 2%(EBS). Then the transmitter bursts the largest
number of back-to back (minimum interframe gap) frames that will drawn down
the Be token bucket until the number of tokens is more than or equal to

Being the geek that I am, I was drooling when I read that. I've been burned by so many switch vendors that don't allocate enough buffer space to their small interfaces on a switch and the first time you try to send traffic from the core to the edge interface in that box, it' pukes, or more specifically just starts puking packets out of it's buffers, making customers call in and complain. The customers calling in and complaining is by far the worse.

The only draw back is that I have to ask the vendors if they support ITU-T 1564 SAM Appendix I
]]>

VPLS.US 06/11/2011 Sync-E Synchronous Ethernet

http://vpls.us/?p=776 Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:47:58 +0000 timc
http://vpls.us/?p=776

Extending Ethernet Beyond Best Effort

Hierarchy 1: Cesium Clock. I have a buddy over in the Netherlands that has a cesium Clock in his apartment :)

Hierarchy 2: At the next level of hierarchy is Synchronization Supply Unit (SSU) or Building Integrated Timing Supply (BITS)

Hierarchy 3: SDH / ATM hardware clocks.

Requirements for SyncE are outlined in the timing characteristics of synchronous Ethernet equipment clock (ITU G.8262/Y1362) specifications. These specifications are based on ITU-T G.813 specification for SDH clocks.
]]>

776
2012-07-11 14:47:58
2012-07-11 21:47:58
open
open
sync-e-synchronous-ethernet
publish
0
0
post

0


wordbooker_options



_edit_last



_wordbooker_thumb



_wordbooker_extract

Hierarchy 1: Cesium Clock. I have a buddy over in the Netherlands that has a cesium Clock in his apartment :)

Hierarchy 2: At the next level of hierarchy is Synchronization Supply Unit (SSU) or Building Inte ...]]>

VPLS.US 06/26/2011 Active Ethernet Versus PON

http://vpls.us/?p=764 Sun, 26 Jun 2011 17:29:08 +0000 timc
http://vpls.us/?p=764

PON: basically a passive splitter 4 way that’s again split with an 8way. Giving you up to 32 ONTs. It’s shared. Kind of like the old 10base2. or 10base5 or arcnet :) Except it’s fiber rather than copper



PON Passive Optical Splitter

Active Ethernet :) well, you’ve been reading about it here for a couple years now. just a series of switches that bring it back to a router at some point. Over fiber it means you are basically limited by the optics you are using to the CE (The Home in the FTTH, or Premises on FTTP).

We ultimately rolled out some PON using Ciena down in Latin America. I didn’t have much to do with that installation, and am certainly glad it wasn’t me who had to make the call for using PON.

As near as I can tell, there doesn’t seem to be a serious amount of saved resources by going with PON. You still have to dig trenches… You still have to get entrance facility. As near as I can tell, all you save is power at the break out boxes…. Where PON is passive and doesn’t require power. The Ethernet requires electricity to power it’s repeaters.

Err not repeaters that was Hubs. :) 3 active repeaters between the user and the CE, but that’s copper. Oh, and you also save a bit of fiber, but having been in a company that laid a lot of fiber, I can tell you that the major expense of laying fiber isn’t the cost of the fiber. It’s the cost of getting the fiber into the ground that costs the most money. Putting more in the ground just gives you future expansion capabilities.

]]>

VPLS.US 06/25/2011 using vpls for e-line

http://vpls.us/?p=756 Sat, 25 Jun 2011 01:48:59 +0000 timc
http://vpls.us/?p=756

using vpls for e-line

This is a pretty interesting question.

On the one hand you could use RFC 4447, using LDP to setup Pseudowire connections between two PEs. That’s pretty simple, straight forward, and with minimal amount of resources that get carved up by the PEs terminating the VC Virtual Connection.

Or, on the other hand, you could use 4762 to establish the point to points between the two CEs. Well there are trade offs for the least use of resources.

With RFC 4447:

  • You have to do some sort of migration if they want to go from ELINE to ELAN.
  • You don’t have any sort of MAC learning.
  • All BPDUs are automatically carried across the link.
  • It has the traditional carrier feel of a circuit being tied up.
  • No routing table is configured on the resources.
  • The turnup / build of a 4447 is MUCH simpler, in most cases the configuration is a single line of code.
  • The training / testing / operational aspects are MUCH simpler.

With RFC 4762:

  • No configuration Migration between ELine to ELan
  • Typically most Router Vendors will allow much deeper packet inspection of L2VPN instead of a Pseudowire. For instance I know of one larger router vendor that will allow classification via DSCP/TOS/Prec using 4762 but not with 4447
  • MAC learning can be turned off to make the behavior similar
  • Configuration is MUCH more complex
  • Traversing a Bridge-domain allows an additional touch point for troubleshooting exercises with the customer.
  • Adding additional sites is easy
  • Passing L2 protocols can require additional Configuration

There are trade offs for every scenario. I guess my main concern with using 4762 for building point to point ethernet is the situation where you are building EVPL or a Etree using point to points. Your trunk will have potentially hundreds of end points and building all of those VPLS 4762 tables seems to be a very large chore.

Then the other thing that has to be considered is the impact of the decision as it relates to your metro area. Turning off MAC learning at your PE doesn’t do anything to limit the amount of addresses that you could or will be seeing in your metro rings. Assuming of course that you don’t extend your pseudowires into the metro. That makes the decision of using VPLS in the metro even much more complex.

Personally, I’ve waffled between the different design theories, and have been swayed because of the features and capabilities of the vendors. However the end result to the customer is identical.

What is everybody else doing?
]]>

VPLS.US 06/24/2011 Relational Investors push to breakup L3

http://vpls.us/?p=752 Fri, 24 Jun 2011 01:06:36 +0000 timc
http://vpls.us/?p=752

My jaw dropped and I paged through to B2 to see the article about the breakup of L3.

Apparently there is a defense firm called L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. which has a bunch of defense contracts and with the slow down of the wars and the pressure from the democrats to get out of the wars, and the republicans seeking to reduce the deficit and spending on defense projects.... They were planning to break themselves up anyway.

Relational's last effort was to break up a company centered on ITT, breaking up into three different companies.

I don't know a lot about defense contracting firms but, I'm glad it's this L3 rather than the L3 that is buying Global Crossing!!!]]>