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?
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 thi
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 jus
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 menti
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
*“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
woma
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 par
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 incident
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 incrementin
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
ww
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
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 hotel
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 t
13 matches
Mail list logo
