castillo.osbunorth@XEROX.COM (05/20/88)
I installed a Proteon router running standard TCP/IP software to connect our back bone net in our building with a private net in the same building (no external gateway, simply a router connecting 2 disjoint subnets). We have noticed some behaviour which seems to be a normal operation on the gateway, but that it is very annoying. It seems that the Proteon does some self testing of both of its Ethernet interfaces and other internal hardware by sending small trash packets to itself every so often through both interfaces. The frequency of such tests is often enough that it is noticibly consuming precious bandwidth already at a premium in our backbone which is carrying a lot of XNS traffic. Has anyone experienced such behaviour? Is there a way to reduce the frequency of the tests? ** julio
jch@DEVVAX.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Jeffrey C Honig) (05/25/88)
Call Proteon customer service (617/898-3100) and request a boot load with the test disabled. Jeff
hans@umd5.umd.edu (Hans Breitenlohner) (05/26/88)
In article <880519-134446-6569@Xerox> Burrell.osbunorth@Xerox.COM, castillo.osbunorth@Xerox.COM writes: > >We have noticed some behaviour which seems to be a normal operation on the >gateway, but that it is very annoying. >It seems that the Proteon does some self testing of both of its Ethernet >interfaces and other internal hardware by sending small trash packets to itself >every so often through both interfaces. >The frequency of such tests is often enough that it is noticibly consuming >precious bandwidth already at a premium in our backbone which is carrying a lot >of XNS traffic. > Two packets are sent out every 3.5 to 4 seconds. While this can be annoying in many respects, it is hard to see how this could consume much bandwidth. You can order the software with this feature ("maintenance feature") disabled, on a per interface basis. You should know that, if you do so, you lose the ability of the gateway to determine if the attached ethernet works. As a result it may RIP-advertise reachability of attached subnets when they are actually down.
kwe@bu-cs.BU.EDU (kwe@bu-it.bu.edu (Kent W. England)) (05/26/88)
In article <2773@umd5.umd.edu> hans@umd5 (Hans Breitenlohner) writes: >In article <880519-134446-6569@Xerox> Burrell.osbunorth@Xerox.COM, castillo.osbunorth@Xerox.COM writes: >> >>It seems that the Proteon does some self testing of both of its Ethernet >>interfaces and other internal hardware by sending small trash packets to itself >>every so often through both interfaces. > >Two packets are sent out every 3.5 to 4 seconds. While this can be annoying >in many respects, it is hard to see how this could consume much bandwidth. > >You can order the software with this feature ("maintenance feature") disabled, >on a per interface basis. >You should know that, if you do so, you lose the ability of the gateway to >determine if the attached ethernet works. As a result it may RIP-advertise >reachability of attached subnets when they are actually down. If the router does not have a hardware interface test capability, it's a pain when the interface doesn't work. Without a test, it can't even detect a missing xcvr cable. I think you should value the interface test. What Proteon has done is essentially the ONLY way to do a thorough test of an Ethernet interface that can't listen to its own transmissions. All software based tests are only indicators. If you disable the test, you have a black hole until you manually disable the interface. Kent England, Boston University
bc@halley.UUCP (Bill Crews) (05/27/88)
In article <22924@bu-cs.BU.EDU> kwe@buit13.bu.edu (Kent England) writes: >In article <2773@umd5.umd.edu> hans@umd5 (Hans Breitenlohner) writes: >>In article <880519-134446-6569@Xerox> Burrell.osbunorth@Xerox.COM, castillo.osbunorth@Xerox.COM writes: >>>It seems that the Proteon does some self testing of both of its Ethernet >>>interfaces and other internal hardware by sending small trash packets to itself >>>every so often through both interfaces. >>Two packets are sent out every 3.5 to 4 seconds. While this can be annoying >>in many respects, it is hard to see how this could consume much bandwidth. > If the router does not have a hardware interface test >capability, it's a pain when the interface doesn't work. Without a >test, it can't even detect a missing xcvr cable. I think you should >value the interface test. Software that generates timed transmissions, especially broadcasts, should have some facility for the interval to be tunable. In addition to Proteon's activity, I know Bridge network management has a 45-second "here I am" thing it does to keep net maps up to date. Keep-alives are popular topics of net conversation anyway, but tunable intervals seldom get much air time. I've certainly seen my share of networks with rwho disabled for this reason, too. In most cases, tuning would have to be coordinated netwide, although cases like the Proteon interface test would be easier to manage. When you add all these things together on a large LAN, you'd be amazed at the residual background activity. -bc -- Bill Crews bc@halley.UUCP (512) 244-8350 ..!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!halley!bc