Problem with dbm TX Power sensors for one Juniper QFX

Help
1

Hi,

We’re having some issues with 1 of our Juniper QFX switches in regards to TX power. The SFPs in question are used to connect 2 pairs of devices connected together over multiple channels and although they are the same SFP brand and similar channels for all 4 switches, for some reason, it’s complaining about sensor over limit for one of the 4 devices.

I was curious to know how it actually picked up the sensor thresholds? Does it get them from the SNMP values of jnxDomCurrentTxLaserOutputPowerHighWarningThreshold (.1.3.6.1.4.1.2636.3.60.1.1.1.1.19) during device discovery? I ask because the dbm values are similar on all 4 devices and when comparing the SNMP values, it falls well below the Warning threshold, which itself is below the alarm threshold. Also, when querying for jnxDomCurrentAlarms, no alarms are active for the device.

Here’s an alarm for one of the ports:
#1: sensor_id => '1327', sensor_oid => '.1.3.6.1.4.1.2636.3.60.1.1.1.1.7.520', sensor_descr => 'xe-0/0/21 Tx Power', sysObjectID => 'enterprises.2636.1.1.1.4.82.5', sysDescr => 'Juniper Networks, Inc. qfx5100-48s-6q Ethernet Switch, kernel JUNOS 14.1X53-D42.3, Build date: 2017-02-14 20:16:27 UTC Copyright (c) 1996-2017 Juniper Networks, Inc.'

Here’s an output of the SNMP queries for that port:
jnxDomCurrentTxLaserOutputPower: SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.2636.3.60.1.1.1.1.7.520 = INTEGER: 200 jnxDomCurrentTxLaserOutputPowerHighWarningThreshold: SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.2636.3.60.1.1.1.1.19.520 = INTEGER: 600 jnxDomCurrentTxLaserOutputPowerLowWarningThreshold: SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.2636.3.60.1.1.1.1.20.520 = INTEGER: -199 jnxDomCurrentTxLaserOutputPowerHighAlarmThreshold: SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.2636.3.60.1.1.1.1.17.520 = INTEGER: 700 jnxDomCurrentTxLaserOutputPowerLowAlarmThreshold: SNMPv2-SMI::enterprises.2636.3.60.1.1.1.1.18.520 = INTEGER: -300

Any clue as to why we would have 9 such alarms for one host? I’ve tried re-discovering the device without any result and even deleting/adding the device.

Thanks!

2

Bumping in case someone new would have any clue.

Please feel free to ask for anything that might help with the matter.

Thanks again!

3

Looks like we are using the wrong high threshold values. Please create an issue on github and provide all the info we ask for.

4

Hi Laf,

Thanks for the follow-up. I will do so then. It’s really weird that originally it didn’t give errors and that it’s also OK for 3 other switches that are using the same SFP models…

5

In case others run into this, fixed with this patch:

Thanks again for the quick fix!