We help IT Professionals succeed at work.

Best Practices Switch Configuration - Packet Storm Protection / Storm Constrain / Storm Control

I want to enable the Storm Constrain Feature of our switches in order to increase network stability in case of packet storms.

my interface lets me configure 3 types:
Broadcast Threshold :       Lower Limit + Upper Limit (in pps)
Multicast Threshold: Lower Limit + Upper Limit (in pps)
Unicast Threshold: Lower Limit + Upper Limit (in pps)

How can I find good values for the three types?
Watch Question

Don JohnstonInstructor
Top Expert 2015

What platform (make/model)?
Primarily HP 1910 switches (1910-48G, 1910-24G), Don. But shouldn't this be a vendor independent issue?
Top Expert 2015
It shouldn't. ;-)

But there are some models of a vendor or two which don't allow setting individual parameters. Actually, they let you set it, but it doesn't do anything. >:-(

That said, the HP switches that I've worked with behave as you would expect.

I wouldn't attempt to set the limits with hard counts.  Too many variables. For example, if you come up with a number for pps, what happens when you start getting jumbo frames? Now you could exceed 100% of the bandwidth if your calc was based on a 64-byte or 1500-byte frame.

You're better off setting the limits based on percent of bandwidth.

For broadcast, I like a 30% cap.  A properly designed network should be seeing over 20% so an extra 10 is good limit.

Multicast and unicast aren't that big of an issue. but if you want to set limits on them, I would probably go with 50% for each.  But I wouldn't.  

What's the goal of this?
The goal is to increase network stability.

We now found out that the port based settings can be defined as a ratio. Only if you navigate to the global packet storm settings, only a pps value can be entered.

We now choose a rather high value of 65% - set in the port setup and selecting all ports. thanks for the advice.
No comment has been added to this question in more than 21 days, so it is now classified as abandoned.

I have recommended this question be closed as follows:

Accept: Don Johnston (https:#a40640899)

If you feel this question should be closed differently, post an objection and the moderators will review all objections and close it as they feel fit. If no one objects, this question will be closed automatically the way described above.

Experts-Exchange Cleanup Volunteer