nanog mailing list archives

Re: 100G, input errors and/or transceiver issues


From: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2021 13:48:52 +0200

You could also enable FEC on the link. This will remove any errors until
the link quality is really far gone.

Regards

Baldur


man. 19. jul. 2021 20.06 skrev Graham Johnston <johnston.grahamj () gmail com>:

Thank you all for the consensus. What I hear from you is that 100G takes
more care to operate error free, as compared to 10G, which wasn't
surprising to me. Also, that generally, we should be able to operate
without errors, or certainly less than I'm currently observing, and that
connector and transceiver interface cleanliness is our first likely point
of investigation.

Thanks to all who responded.

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 12:58, Jared Mauch <jared () puck nether net> wrote:



On Jul 19, 2021, at 1:50 PM, Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 20:19, Graham Johnston
<johnston.grahamj () gmail com> wrote:

I don't at this point have long term data collection compiled for the
issues that we've faced. That said, we have two 100G transport links that
have a regular background level of input errors at ranges that hover
between 0.00055 to 0.00383 PPS on one link, and none to 0.00135 PPS (that
jumped to 0.03943 PPS over the weekend). The range is often directionally
associated rather than variable

On typical 100G link we do not get single FCS error in a typical day.
However Ethernet spec still allows very high error rate of 10**-12. So
1 error per 1Tb (b not B). I.e. 1 error per 10s, or 0.1PPS would be
in-spec. We see much better performance to this and vendors generally
accept lower error rates as legitimate errors.


I will confirm my experience with this at $dayjob as well.  We see
interfaces with no errors over much longer periods of time inclusive of
several of the technology options.  If you are seeing errors, there’s
likely something wrong like unclean fiber or bad optic/linecard etc.

- Jared



Current thread: