nanog mailing list archives
Re: 100g PCS Errors
From: "Clinton Work" <clinton () scripty com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 11:34:00 -0600
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 incidents and a root cause was never found. -- Clinton Work Airdrie, AB On Wed, Aug 19, 2020, at 6:46 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 see high error rates on their 100g optics?
Current thread:
- 100g PCS Errors Nicholas Warren (Aug 19)
- Re: 100g PCS Errors J. Hellenthal via NANOG (Aug 19)
- Re: 100g PCS Errors Matt Harris (Aug 19)
- Re: 100g PCS Errors Tom Beecher (Aug 19)
- Re: 100g PCS Errors Aaron (Aug 19)
- Re: 100g PCS Errors Clinton Work (Aug 19)
- Re: 100g PCS Errors Mark Tinka (Aug 19)
- Re: 100g PCS Errors Saku Ytti (Aug 19)
- Re: 100g PCS Errors Mark Tinka (Aug 20)
- Re: 100g PCS Errors Mark Tinka (Aug 19)
- Re: 100g PCS Errors J. Hellenthal via NANOG (Aug 19)