RARE user and assistance email list

[Tim Chown <>]

> On 7 Feb 2022, at 17:57, mc36 <> wrote:
> 
> hi,
> 
> On 2/7/22 18:39, Tim Chown wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Well, our use case is fairly simple.  The Wedge would act as a 100G 
>> gateway to host four 100G connected servers that we   d use to test 
>> perfSONAR and various data transfers tools on DTNs.  This would be a 
>> static setup, with maybe a single v4 and v6 subnet on the server side.   
>> So BGP seems overkill, but our engineers asked what RARE/FreeRtr supports.
> basically everything is supported that you expect from a cisco/junos box...
> if it's bgp, or even bgp-lu, with a single prefix, then that...
> if it's isis, then we\re part of geant for a year, part of local nren's 
> ospf and fullbgp,
> keeping the geant's mdvpn bgp-lu + vpnv4/vpnv6/vpls routes from bmp 
> flawlessly,
> so have no concerns, let your engs imagine anything, we already support it 
> :)

OK, thanks, but that will be overkill :)

>> What matters most is the performance, hence our interest in the tests by 
>> PSNC and on the Data Mover Challenge.  We   ve seen high rates from Joseph 
>>   s device at UvA, but inconclusive results from PSNC (they probably need 
>> to be more tightly defined).  We think in a scenario where there   s 
>> generally a limited number of concurrent flows, the small Wedge buffers 
>> (16 or 20MB?0 should be OK.
> so in psnc they did the measures over lr over cwdm which, in terms of 
> inter-packet times and drops are not a good choice...
> i remember clearly that initially we had 1 crcing lane out of 4, and after 
> the swaps, the levels fairly was under warning...

So what does that mean in practice if we want to use a Wedge running 
RARE/FreeRtr as an access device for 100G servers?   The results Jospeh saw 
for his device for the Data Mover Challenge were decent.

Tomek is preparing new tests for RARE.

>> There   s no initial need for multicast, PolKa or anything like that.
> ahh, pick any profile from the available ones depending on what you want to 
> test...
> and if your engs complain that this or that table is too small, just drop a 
> template
> over the fence with your goals and we'll optimize for that too... it's 
> about 30m per
> profile and need to be done once per p4 change (which is rare nowadays)

OK, I don’t know those requirements yet.  The routing could be static, 
really, given the simplicity of the topology.

>> Raul and David are checking QSFPs and cables this week, so we   re getting 
>> closer to being ready to deploy.
> sounds goods!

Hopefully they’ll be at a Tuesday community call before too long.

Tim

> 
> regards,
> cs
> 
> 
>> Tim
>>> On 7 Feb 2022, at 15:23, mc36 <> wrote:
>>> 
>>> hi,
>>> exactly, it depends on the exact features you need...
>>> this is the ultimate source of thruth:
> >> https://bitbucket.software.geant.org/projects/RARE/repos/rare/browse/profiles
>>> the .tmpl files are the 'golas' that you have to set yourself...
>>> it's a two step optimization, first for the tcam, then for the sram...
>>> this is an ip-only profile with nothing else but the ipv4/ipv6 fib 
>>> enabled:
>>> https://bitbucket.software.geant.org/projects/RARE/repos/rare/browse/profiles/profile-rawip.tmpl
>>> https://bitbucket.software.geant.org/projects/RARE/repos/rare/browse/profiles/profile-rawip.p4
>>> and here is an other with mpls enabled:
>>> https://bitbucket.software.geant.org/projects/RARE/repos/rare/browse/profiles/profile-p.tmpl
>>> https://bitbucket.software.geant.org/projects/RARE/repos/rare/browse/profiles/profile-p.p4
>>> as flou said, you should set your own features and goals and then it'll 
>>> optimize for that specific profile...
>>> one thing to keep in mind that both sram and tcam table increase could 
>>> span to multiple code stages,
>>> resulting in lower tables so choose the primary goal according to your 
>>> needs and let the secondary
>>> goal span the remaining asic code space...
>>> regards,
>>> cs
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/7/22 15:15, Fr  d  ric LOUI wrote:
>>>> Let me add Csaba as he is tweaking RARE profiles at teh moment.
>>>> The answer I presume will depends on your use case.
>>>>> Le 7 f  vr. 2022    14:51, Tim Chown <> a   crit :
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> What size BGP table can the Wedge take running RARE?
>>>>> 
>>>>> i.e. should we suggest our engineers configure static routing?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Raul and David (our engineer) will be looking at the Wedge, servers and 
>>>>> cabling in their current location this week, as the plan to deploy 100G 
>>>>> in London gets nearer
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Tim