100G, input errors and/or transceiver issues

Lady Benjamin Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE lb at 6by7.net
Mon Jul 19 19:19:27 UTC 2021

We... don’t see anything like this... on the transport side, FEC is more than sufficient to effectively eliminate errors.   On the LAN side, check your connections.

Reiterating that this is not normal or expected behavior.

Ms. Lady Benjamin PD Cannon of Glencoe, ASCE
6x7 Networks & 6x7 Telecom, LLC 
lb at 6by7.net <mailto:lb at 6by7.net>
"The only fully end-to-end encrypted global telecommunications company in the world.”
FCC License KJ6FJJ

> On Jul 19, 2021, at 10:19 AM, Graham Johnston <johnston.grahamj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Saku,
> 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 behavior of a single direction. The data comes from the last 24 hours, the two referenced links are operated by different providers on very different paths (opposite directions). Over shorter distances, we've definitely seen input errors that have affected PNI connections within a datacenter as well. In the case of the last PNI issue, the other party swapped their transceiver, we didn't even physically touch our side; I note this only to express that I don't think this is just a case of the transceivers that we are sourcing.
> Comparatively, other than clear transport system issues, I don't recall this sort of thing at all with 10G "wavelength" transport that we had purchased for years prior. I put wavelengths in quotes there knowing that it may have been a while since our transport was a literal wavelength as compared to being muxed into a 100G+ wavelength.
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 12:01, Saku Ytti <saku at ytti.fi <mailto:saku at ytti.fi>> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 at 19:47, Graham Johnston
> <johnston.grahamj at gmail.com <mailto:johnston.grahamj at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hey Graham,
> > How commonly do other operators experience input errors with 100G interfaces?
> > How often do you find that you have to change a transceiver out? Either for errors or another reason.
> > Do we collectively expect this to improve as 100G becomes more common and production volumes increase in the future?
> New rule. Share your own data before asking others to share theirs.
> IN DC, SP markets 100GE has dominated the market for several years
> now, so it rings odd to many at 'more common'. 112G SERDES is shipping
> on the electric side, and there is nowhere more mature to go from
> 100GE POV. The optical side, QSFP112, is really the only thing left to
> cost optimise 100GE.
> We've had our share of MSA ambiguity issues with 100GE, but today
> 100GE looks mature to our eyes in failure rates and compatibility. 1GE
> is really hard to support and 10GE is becoming problematic, in terms
> of hardware procurement.
> -- 
>   ++ytti

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20210719/c901ab5a/attachment.html>

More information about the NANOG mailing list