link monitoring

Fri Apr 30 23:53:26 UTC 2021

Y.1731 or TWAMP if available on those devices.

Le ven. 30 avr. 2021 17:57, Colton Conor <colton.conor at gmail.com> a écrit :

> What NMS is everyone using to graph and alert on this data?
>
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 7:49 AM Alain Hebert <ahebert at pubnix.net> wrote:
>
>>     Yes the JNP DOM MIB is what you are looking for.
>>
>>     It also the traps for warnings and alarms thresholds you can use
>> which is driven by the optic own parameters.
>>     ( Human Interface: show interfaces diagnostics optics <interface> ] )
>>
>>     TLDR:
>>
>>         Realtime: Traps;
>>         Monitoring: DOM MIB;
>>
>>     PS: I suggest you join [ juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net ] mailing list.
>>
>> -----
>> Alain Hebert                                ahebert at pubnix.net
>> PubNIX Inc.
>> 50 boul. St-Charles
>> P.O. Box 26770     Beaconsfield, Quebec     H9W 6G7
>> Tel: 514-990-5911  http://www.pubnix.net    Fax: 514-990-9443
>>
>> On 4/29/21 5:32 PM, Eric Kuhnke wrote:
>>
>> The Junipers on both sides should have discrete SNMP OIDs that respond
>> with a FEC stress value, or FEC error value. See blue highlighted part here
>> about FEC. Depending on what version of JunOS you're running the MIB for it
>> may or may not exist.
>>
>>
>> https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB36074&cat=MX2008&actp=LIST
>>
>> In other equipment sometimes it's found in a sub-tree of SNMP adjacent to
>> optical DOM values. Once you can acquire and poll that value, set it up as
>> a custom thing to graph and alert upon certain threshold values in your
>> choice of NMS.
>>
>> Additionally signs of a failing optic may show up in some of the optical
>> DOM MIB items you can poll:
>> https://mibs.observium.org/mib/JUNIPER-DOM-MIB/
>>
>> It helps if you have some non-misbehaving similar linecards and optics
>> which can be polled during custom graph/OID configuration, to establish a
>> baseline 'no problem' value, which if exceeded will trigger whatever
>> threshold value you set in your monitoring system.
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 1:40 PM Baldur Norddahl <
>> baldur.norddahl at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> We had a 100G link that started to misbehave and caused the customers to
>>> notice bad packet loss. The optical values are just fine but we had packet
>>> loss and latency. Interface shows FEC errors on one end and carrier
>>> transitions on the other end. But otherwise the link would stay up and our
>>> monitor system completely failed to warn about the failure. Had to find the
>>> bad link by traceroute (mtr) and observe where packet loss started.
>>>
>>> The link was between a Juniper MX204 and Juniper ACX5448. Link length 2
>>> meters using 2 km single mode SFP modules.
>>>
>>> What is the best practice to monitor links to avoid this scenarium? What
>>> options do we have to do link monitoring? I am investigating BFD but I am
>>> unsure if that would have helped the situation.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Baldur
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210430/d1aa4f22/attachment.html>