Unicast Flooding

Steven King sking at kingrst.com
Wed Jun 17 21:39:42 CDT 2009


I wouldn't consider this a defect. Historically L2 and L3 devices have
always been separate. When you get L3 switch those functions are just
combined into one device. In Cisco devices that support CEF, the CEF
table is used to make all forwarding decisions. But the CEF table is
dependent the ARP and Routing tables on the L3 side. When it comes to
forwarding the frame of the proper interface the CAM table comes into
play. If that table is timing out quicker than the L3 tables, there will
be times the CAM table is incomplete.

This is mostly present in redundant gateway setups. In bound traffic is
usually load balanced between the two redundant devices. The gateways
learn about the servers/workstations by traffic leaving the VLAN, not
coming into the VLAN. In the case of HSRP/VRRP the servers/workstations
are only using one of the two redundant devices to send traffic out of
the VLAN. In this case, one device will end up with incomplete
information every 5 minutes (default MAC aging timer). This will cause
traffic coming in to the VLAN (usually load balanced with EIGRP or OSPF)
to be a unknown unicast flood out all ports on the standby device.

Making the L2/3 timers the same corrects this. The reason this corrects
this because, for CEF to make a forwarding decision, it must have the
layer 3 engine make an ARP request if the ARP entry is not present. This
causes an ARP broadcast. With the ARP reply being returned the active
and standby device can both keep their CAM/ARP/CEF tables up to date.

As I do not consider this a defect that these are not synchronized by
default, I do agree it would be very beneficial and prevent a lot of
confusion and hours of troubleshooting when unsuspecting engineers are
trying to figure out why they have a ton of unknown unicast packets.

Just my additional 0.02

Holmes,David A wrote:
> In a layer 3 switch I consider unicast flooding due to an L2 cam table timeout a design defect. To test vendors' L3 switches for this defect we have used a traffic generator to send 50-100 Mbps of pings to a device that does not reply to the pings, where the L3 switch was routing from one vlan to another to forward the pings. In defective devices the L2 cam table entry expires, causing the 50-100 Mbps unicast stream to be flooded out all ports in the destination vlan. In my view the L3 and L2 forwarding state machines must be synchronized such that the L3 forwarding continues as long as there are packets entering the L3 switch on one vlan, and exiting the switch on another vlan via routing. It seems that gratuitous arps are a workaround which serves to reset the cam entry timeout interval, but not an elegant solution.    
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Huff [mailto:mhuff at ox.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:58 PM
> To: 'Brian Shope'; 'nanog at nanog.org'
> Subject: RE: Unicast Flooding
>
> Unicast flooding is a common occurrence in large datacenters especially with asymmetrical paths caused by different first hop routers (via HSRP, VRRP, etc). We ran into this some time ago. Most arp sensitive systems such as clusters, HSRP, content switches etc are smart enough to send out gratuitous arps which eliminates the worries of increasing the timeouts. We haven't had any issues since we made the changes.
>
> After debugging the problem we added "mac-address-table aging-time 14400" to our data center switches. That syncs the mac aging time to the same timeout value as the ARP timeout 
>
> ----
> Matthew Huff       | One Manhattanville Rd
> OTA Management LLC | Purchase, NY 10577
> http://www.ox.com  | Phone: 914-460-4039
> aim: matthewbhuff  | Fax:   914-460-4139
>
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Shope [mailto:blackwolf99999 at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 5:33 PM
>> To: nanog at nanog.org
>> Subject: Unicast Flooding
>>
>> Recently while running a packet capture I came across some unicast
>> flooding
>> that was happening on my network.  One of our core switches didn't have
>> the
>> mac-address for a server, and was flooding all packets destined to that
>> server.  It wasn't learning the mac-address because the server was
>> responding to packets out on a different network card on a different
>> switch.  The flooding I was seeing wasn't enough to cause any network
>> issues, it was only a few megs, but it was something that I wanted to
>> fix.
>>
>> I've ran into this issue before, and solved it by statically entering
>> the
>> mac-address into the cam tables.
>>
>> I want to avoid this problem in the future, and I'm looking at two
>> different
>> things.
>>
>> The first is preventing it in the first place.  Along those lines, I've
>> seen
>> some recommendations on-line about changing the arp and cam timeouts to
>> be
>> the same.  However, there seems to be a disagreement on which is
>> better,
>> making the arp timeouts match the cam table timeouts, or vice versa.
>> Also,
>> when talking about this, everyone seems to be only considering routers,
>> but
>> what about the timers on a firewall?  I'm worried that I might cause
>> other
>> issues by changing these timers.
>>
>> The second thing I'm considering is monitoring.  I'd like to setup
>> something
>> to monitor for any excessive unicast flooding in the future.  I
>> understand
>> that a little unicast flooding is normal, as the switch has to do a
>> little
>> bit of flooding to find out where people are.  While looking for a way
>> to
>> monitor this, I came across the 'mac-address-table unicast-flood'
>> command on
>> Cisco switches.  This looked perfect for what I needed, but apparently
>> it is
>> currently not an option on 6500 switches with Sup720s.  Since there
>> doesn't
>> appear to be an option on Cisco that monitors specificaly for unicast
>> floods, I thought that maybe I could setup a server with a network card
>> in
>> promiscuous mode and then keep stats of all packets received that
>> aren't
>> destined for the server and that also aren't legitimate broadcasts or
>> multicasts.  The only problem with that is that I don't want to have to
>> completely custom build my own solution.  I was hoping that someone may
>> have
>> already created something like this, or that maybe there is a good
>> reporting
>> tool for wireshark or something that could generate the report that I
>> want.
>>
>> Anyone have any suggestions on either prevention/monitoring?
>>
>> Thanks!!
>>
>> -Brian
>>     
>
>
>   

-- 
Steve King

Network Engineer - Liquid Web, Inc.
Cisco Certified Network Associate
CompTIA Linux+ Certified Professional
CompTIA A+ Certified Professional





More information about the NANOG mailing list