Description

This article explains why the "peer_input_pending_internal:[5240] VKS0 for peer type 7 indx 0 reported a so_error 54" log message may be seen on VC-Mm (VC primary chassis' primary Routing Engine) during backup chassis local primaryship switchover.

It also clarifies that the log is informational with no service impact, explaining that VC-Bm just closed the connection to VC-Mm due to a reboot for the local primaryship switchover.

The log is also seen during the following scenarios:

  • When VC-Mb is rebooted, connection between VC-MM and VC-Mb is down.

  • When VC-Bb is rebooted, connection between VC-Bm and VC-Bb is down.

 

Symptoms

On VC-Bm, execute local primaryship switchover: 

{backup:member0-re0} 
JTAC-VC-member0-re0> request chassis routing-engine master switch local  
Toggle mastership between routing engines ? [yes,no] (no) yes

On VC-Mm, the following log is observed: 

Jul 14 23:04:15.785 2020   JTAC-VC-member1-re0 kernel: %KERN-4: peer_input_pending_internal:[5240] VKS0 for peer type 7 indx 0 reported a so_error 54
Jul 14 23:04:15.785 2020   JTAC-VC-member1-re0 kernel: %KERN-4: peer_input_pending_internal:[5240] VKS0 for peer type 7 indx 0 reported a so_error 54

 

Solution

The "peer_input_pending_internal" log means that the connection between VC-Mm and VC-Bm is down (due to VC-Bm reboot). This is expected behavior when the VC backup chassis is doing local primaryship switchover.

Also the content of the log message varies depending on the time and how VC-Bm handles the connection before reboot. You may also see the logs as shown below: 

Jul 14 23:29:11.113 2020  JTAC-VC-member0-re1 kernel: %KERN-4: peer_input_pending_internal:[5247] VKS0 for peer type 7 indx 1 reported a sb_state 32 = SBS_CANTRCVMORE
Jul 14 18:30:13.065 JTAC-VC-member0-re1 kernel: %KERN-4: peer_input_pending_internal:[5240] VKS1 for peer type 17 indx 0 reported a so_error 60

They are all for the same cause and are informational only.

 

The above logs are triggered by the local switchover of the VC backup chassis and they are expected. They can be safely ignored without taking any action.

 

Modification History

2020-10-25: Additional details added in Summary and words that failed to represent the inclusion and diversity Juniper values replaced