🔐 New: Fortinet SASE solutions now available — Talk to an expert →
ABN 41 542 457 678  |  Serving Australian businesses since 2014

100GbE Inter-Switch Link — Test Plan
TEST PLAN

100 Gigabit Ethernet
Inter-Switch Link

Performance & Throughput Validation over QSFP28 Fibre Optics
100GBASE-SR4  ·  100GBASE-LR4
FieldDetail
Document title100GbE Inter-Switch Link — Performance & Throughput Test Plan
Version1.0 (Draft for review)
Prepared byBrett Rogers, Connec — Industrial Power Connectors
Date17 August 2026
Test scopePoint-to-point 100GbE link between Switch-A and Switch-B over QSFP28 optics
FocusThroughput, latency, jitter, frame loss, MTU, buffering and sustained load
AssumptionLink is physically installed and reaches UP state; commissioning of L2/L3 services is out of scope
StatusPending peer review and change approval

1. Purpose and Scope

This plan defines the acceptance testing required to prove that a 100 Gigabit Ethernet link between two switches, carried over QSFP28 fibre optic transceivers, performs at line rate and within specification before it is placed into production service.

1.1 Terminology

Throughout this document the link is referred to as 100GbE (100 gigabits per second), not 100 GB. 100 Gbps equates to approximately 12.5 GB/s of theoretical payload capacity. This distinction matters when interpreting host-based test results, which are frequently reported in bytes rather than bits.

1.2 In scope

  • Optical baseline of both QSFP28 transceivers and the fibre path (measured, not assumed).
  • Forward Error Correction (FEC) behaviour and pre-/post-FEC bit error rate.
  • RFC 2544 throughput, latency, frame loss and back-to-back burst testing across the standard frame size range.
  • Bidirectional full-duplex line rate validation.
  • Frame delay variation (jitter) per RFC 3393.
  • MTU and jumbo frame validation up to the platform maximum.
  • Buffer, microburst and incast behaviour under congestion.
  • TCP goodput validation per RFC 6349 where host-based testing is used.
  • Sustained soak test with error counter monitoring.

1.3 Out of scope

  • Initial cabling, patching and physical installation works.
  • Routing protocol convergence, spanning tree and control plane failover testing.
  • Multi-hop or end-to-end application performance beyond the two switches under test.
  • Security, ACL and QoS policy validation, other than the buffer behaviour tests noted below.

1.4 Success statement

The link is accepted when every mandatory test case returns a Pass, the post-FEC bit error rate is zero across the soak period, and bidirectional throughput reaches 100% of theoretical line rate at frame sizes of 512 bytes and above with zero frame loss.

2. Test Topology

A single point-to-point 100GbE link is under test. Two topologies are used depending on the test phase.

2.1 Phase A — Instrumented (preferred)

A hardware traffic generator is connected to a 100GbE port on each switch. Traffic is injected at Switch-A, traverses the link under test, and is received and analysed at Switch-B. This is the only method that reliably produces true line rate at small frame sizes and provides accurate one-way latency measurement.

Tester Port 1  →  Switch-A [Port X]  ══ QSFP28 LINK UNDER TEST ══  Switch-B [Port Y]  →  Tester Port 2

2.2 Phase B — Host-based (fallback)

Where a hardware tester is unavailable, two servers fitted with 100GbE NICs are attached, one to each switch. Host-based testing cannot achieve line rate at 64-byte frames and will under-report performance if not tuned; results must be interpreted against the caveats in Section 7.

2.3 Link under test — record before starting

AttributeSwitch-ASwitch-B
Hostname
Make / model / OS version
Interface ID
Transceiver type (SR4 / LR4)
Transceiver part / serial
Fibre type (OM4 / OS2)
Connector (MPO-12 / duplex LC)
Measured path length
Patch panel / cross-connect IDs
FEC mode configured

3. Prerequisites and Equipment

3.1 Equipment

ItemRequirement
Traffic generatorHardware tester with two 100GbE QSFP28 ports capable of line rate at 64-byte frames, RFC 2544 automation and hardware timestamping. Examples: Keysight/Ixia, Spirent TestCenter, Viavi. Software alternative: TRex or DPDK-pktgen on a tuned server.
Host NICs (Phase B)Two 100GbE NICs (e.g. NVIDIA/Mellanox ConnectX-5/6, Intel E810) in PCIe 3.0 x16 or better slots. PCIe 3.0 x16 gives roughly 126 Gbps usable — adequate for one direction only. Use PCIe 4.0 x16 for full-duplex host testing.
Optical power meterCalibrated meter supporting 850 nm and 1310 nm, plus a reference patch lead of matching type.
Fibre inspection scopeVideo inspection probe with MPO and LC tips. Mandatory — contamination is the single most common cause of 100GbE link faults.
Spare transceiversAt least one matched spare pair of the same type, for fault isolation.
Variable attenuatorOptional, for optical margin stress testing (TC-14).
Cleaning kitMPO and LC one-click cleaners plus lint-free wipes and IPA.

3.2 Entry conditions

  • Change record raised and approved; maintenance window confirmed.
  • Both switches running the intended production software version.
  • Transceivers are a matched pair of the same standard at both ends. SR4 will not link to LR4.
  • Both ends configured with the same FEC mode, speed and MTU.
  • All fibre endfaces inspected and cleaned, and inspected again after cleaning.
  • A rollback plan exists and the pre-change configuration is backed up.
  • Monitoring and alerting suppressed for the ports under test to avoid noise during load generation.
  • Baseline configuration of both interfaces captured to file.

3.3 Optical reference values

Use these figures to judge whether measured DOM readings are healthy. Always confirm against the specific transceiver vendor datasheet, which takes precedence.

Parameter100GBASE-SR4100GBASE-LR4
Wavelength850 nm1295.56 / 1300.05 / 1304.58 / 1309.14 nm (LAN-WDM)
Lane structure4 × 25.78125 Gbps NRZ4 × 25.78125 Gbps NRZ
Fibre / connectorOM3 / OM4 MMF, MPO-12OS2 SMF, duplex LC
Max reach70 m (OM3) / 100 m (OM4)10 km
Tx power per lane−8.4 to +2.4 dBm−4.3 to +4.5 dBm
Rx sensitivity per laneBetter than −10.3 dBm−10.6 dBm (overload +3.3 dBm)
Link power budgetLoss-limited, ~1.9 dB (OM4)6.3 dB (IEEE 802.3ba, 10 km)
FECRS-FEC(528,514) mandatoryNot required by IEEE; often enabled

3.4 Equipment sourcing and supplier engagement

To support this test programme we are seeking advice on equipment availability, technical support and reporting capabilities. Based on our initial review, we believe the following equipment may be required. The optical loss test set, OFDR and OTDR support the fibre path characterisation underpinning TC-01 and TC-02; the dual-port tester supports TC-04 through TC-09 and TC-15.

3.4.1 Equipment required from supplier

ItemPurpose / notes
Calibrated dual-port 100G Ethernet tester / analyserLine-rate traffic generation and analysis for the RFC 2544 and soak test cases.
Two matched 100GBASE-LR4 QSFP28 transceivers (plus a spare if recommended)Matched pair required at both ends; spare for fault isolation.
1310 / 1550 nm optical loss test setInsertion loss and path loss measurement across the link.
OFDR (optical frequency domain reflectometer)Preferred — due to the closely spaced coupler interfaces within the system, which fall inside the dead zone of conventional OTDRs.
High-resolution OTDR with appropriate launch and receive leadsEvent and reflectance characterisation along the fibre path.
Technical supportTo conduct the testing and provide a validated test report suitable for submission to BHP.

3.4.2 Equipment already available at Connec

ItemPurpose / notes
IEC 61300-3-35 compliant fibre inspection microscopeEndface inspection for TC-01.
Fibre cleaning equipment and inspection toolsMPO and LC cleaning consumables.
Reference-grade OS2 duplex patch leadsReference leads for loss measurement on LR4 spans.
Connec receptacle-to-LC adaptors / pigtailsInterface between the Connec receptacle system and test equipment.
Environmental monitoring equipmentTemperature and humidity logging across the soak period (TC-15).
Laptop and reporting software (where applicable)Data capture, counter polling and report compilation.

3.5 Information requested from supplier

  1. What equipment do you have available that would be suitable for this testing?
  2. Can you provide engineering support and a formal test report?
  3. What is the earliest availability of the equipment and/or personnel in Brisbane?
  4. Do you have any recommendations regarding the most appropriate test methodology to satisfy BHP acceptance requirements?

4. Line Rate Reference Data

Theoretical maximum frame rates for 100GbE, accounting for the 20 bytes of per-frame overhead (12-byte inter-frame gap plus 8-byte preamble and start-of-frame delimiter). Use these as the denominator when calculating percentage of line rate achieved.

Frame size (bytes)Frames per secondL1 rate (Gbps)L2 payload throughput (Gbps)
64148,809,524100.00076.19
12884,459,459100.00086.49
25645,289,855100.00092.75
51223,496,241100.00096.24
102411,973,180100.00098.08
12809,615,385100.00098.46
15188,127,438100.00098.70
9216 (jumbo)1,353,398100.00099.78

Small-frame performance is the honest test of a switch fabric. A link that passes at 1518 bytes but fails at 64 bytes has a forwarding or fabric limitation, not an optical one.

5. Test Cases

Order matters. Do not proceed to traffic generation until TC-01 through TC-03 have passed. Running load across a marginal optical path produces misleading results and wastes window time.

5.1 Baseline and optical integrity

TC-01 — Fibre endface inspection and cleanliness
ObjectiveConfirm every optical endface in the path is clean and undamaged before any measurement is taken.
ToolingVideo inspection probe with MPO and LC tips; one-click cleaners.
MethodInspect both transceiver ports, both patch lead ends, and every patch panel adapter in the path. Clean any endface that fails IEC 61300-3-35 criteria, then re-inspect. For MPO connectors, inspect all 12 fibres and confirm correct polarity (Type B crossover is standard for SR4).
Pass criteriaAll endfaces pass IEC 61300-3-35 with no contamination, scratches or pits in the core zone. MPO polarity confirmed correct.
NotesNever inspect a live fibre without confirming the far-end transmitter is disabled.
TC-02 — Optical power and DOM baseline
ObjectiveRecord transmit and receive optical power on all four lanes at both ends and confirm adequate margin above receiver sensitivity.
ToolingSwitch CLI DOM/DDM output; calibrated optical power meter for independent verification.
MethodRead per-lane Tx and Rx power, temperature, supply voltage and bias current at both ends. Calculate path loss as (near-end Tx) minus (far-end Rx) for each lane. Compare against Section 3.3 and the vendor datasheet. Independently verify at least one lane with the power meter to validate the DOM readings.
Pass criteriaAll lanes within vendor Tx and Rx specification. Rx power at least 3 dB above stated receiver sensitivity on every lane. Lane-to-lane Rx variance no greater than 2 dB. No DOM alarms or warnings.
NotesLane imbalance greater than 2–3 dB usually indicates a dirty or misaligned MPO connector, or a partially seated ferrule.
TC-02a — Fibre path characterisation (OFDR / OTDR)
ObjectiveCharacterise every optical event along the fibre path — connectors, splices, adaptors and coupler interfaces — and confirm that per-event loss and reflectance, and total path loss, fall within the acceptance thresholds.
ToolingOFDR (preferred) — millimetre-scale spatial resolution, required because the coupler interfaces within the Connec receptacle system are spaced more closely than a conventional OTDR can resolve. High-resolution OTDR with launch and receive leads as the fallback. 1310 / 1550 nm optical loss test set for the reference end-to-end insertion loss measurement.
MethodEstablish the end-to-end insertion loss with the loss test set using the one-cord reference method at both 1310 nm and 1550 nm. Then run OFDR or OTDR traces at both wavelengths, from both ends, using matched launch and receive leads. Produce an event table listing distance, insertion loss and reflectance for every event. Reconcile the summed event losses against the measured end-to-end insertion loss and against the path loss calculated in TC-02. Retain all raw traces as test evidence.
Pass criteriaEvery mated connector pair at or below 0.5 dB insertion loss (0.75 dB absolute maximum). Reflectance at or below −45 dB for UPC and −55 dB for APC interfaces. Fusion splices at or below 0.1 dB. Total measured path loss within the link power budget in Section 3.3, with at least 3 dB of margin retained. Bidirectional averaged event losses agree to within 0.2 dB. No unexplained or undocumented events on the trace.
NotesThis is the test case that justifies the OFDR request in Section 3.4. A standard OTDR has an event dead zone of roughly 0.5–2 m, so closely spaced coupler interfaces merge into a single event and individual faults are masked — OFDR resolves them separately. Compare the 1310 nm and 1550 nm traces: loss that appears at 1550 nm but not 1310 nm indicates a macrobend rather than a connector fault. Confirm the specific reflectance and loss thresholds against the BHP acceptance specification, which takes precedence over the generic values above.
TC-03 — Link establishment, negotiation and FEC baseline
ObjectiveConfirm the link comes up cleanly at 100 Gbps with matching FEC configuration and no error accumulation at idle.
ToolingSwitch CLI (interface, transceiver and FEC counters).
MethodClear all interface counters. Bring the link up and confirm both ends report 100 Gbps full duplex. Verify FEC mode matches (RS-FEC mandatory for SR4). Leave the link idle for 30 minutes and re-read counters. Record pre-FEC BER, corrected codewords, uncorrected codewords, CRC errors, runts, giants and symbol errors.
Pass criteriaLink UP, 100 Gbps, no flaps. FEC mode identical at both ends. Zero uncorrected FEC codewords. Zero CRC, input and output errors. Pre-FEC BER at or below 1E-6.
NotesRS-FEC(528,514) corrects to approximately 2E-4 pre-FEC BER before the correction waterfall. A pre-FEC BER above 1E-5 indicates a marginal path that will fail under thermal drift — investigate before proceeding.

5.2 Throughput and performance

TC-04 — RFC 2544 throughput (unidirectional)
ObjectiveDetermine the maximum frame rate the link forwards with zero frame loss, across the standard frame size range.
ToolingHardware traffic generator running an automated RFC 2544 throughput suite.
MethodRun a binary search for the zero-loss rate at frame sizes 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 1280, 1518 and 9216 bytes. Trial duration 60 seconds per frame size (RFC 2544 minimum), resolution 0.1%. Repeat in the reverse direction. Record achieved fps, throughput in Gbps and percentage of theoretical line rate against Section 4.
Pass criteria100% of line rate with zero loss at 512 bytes and above. At or above 98% of line rate at 64 and 128 bytes. Results consistent in both directions to within 0.5%.
NotesRFC 2544 was written for lab characterisation of a device under test. It is used here as a repeatable acceptance benchmark, not as a production traffic profile.
TC-05 — Bidirectional full-duplex line rate
ObjectiveConfirm the link sustains full line rate simultaneously in both directions — 200 Gbps aggregate.
ToolingHardware traffic generator, bidirectional load profile.
MethodOffer 100% line rate simultaneously in both directions at frame sizes 64, 512 and 1518 bytes. Hold each for 5 minutes. Monitor FEC and interface counters throughout and read transceiver temperature at the start and end of each run.
Pass criteriaZero frame loss in both directions. Zero uncorrected FEC codewords and zero CRC errors. Transceiver temperature remains within vendor operating range.
NotesThis is where undersized optics cooling and marginal power delivery reveal themselves. Watch transceiver temperature closely.
TC-06 — RFC 2544 latency
ObjectiveMeasure the forwarding latency introduced by the link and the two switch ports.
ToolingHardware traffic generator with hardware timestamping (sub-microsecond resolution).
MethodAt the zero-loss throughput rate determined in TC-04, measure latency at each frame size. Run 20 iterations of 120 seconds each, per RFC 2544. Record minimum, average, maximum and 99.9th percentile. Note whether switches are store-and-forward or cut-through, as this materially changes the expected figure.
Pass criteriaLatency consistent with vendor published figures for the platform and forwarding mode. Maximum latency no greater than three times the average. No latency outliers correlating with FEC correction events.
NotesAdd approximately 5 µs per kilometre of fibre for propagation delay on LR4 spans.
TC-07 — Frame delay variation (jitter)
ObjectiveConfirm delay variation is low enough to support latency-sensitive traffic such as storage, voice and video.
ToolingHardware traffic generator, RFC 3393 measurement mode.
MethodOffer a constant-rate stream at 90% of line rate for 15 minutes at 512 and 1518 byte frame sizes. Record the inter-packet delay variation distribution.
Pass criteriaAverage frame delay variation below 10 µs. 99.9th percentile below 50 µs. No sustained upward drift over the measurement period.
TC-08 — RFC 2544 frame loss rate
ObjectiveCharacterise how the link degrades when offered load exceeds the zero-loss threshold.
ToolingHardware traffic generator.
MethodOffer load at 100%, 90%, 80%, 70%, 60% and 50% of line rate at each frame size, 60 seconds per step. Plot the resulting loss curve.
Pass criteriaZero loss at every step up to and including 100% of line rate for frames of 512 bytes and above. Loss curve degrades gracefully and predictably, with no discontinuities or cliff edges below 100%.
TC-09 — Back-to-back frames and burst tolerance
ObjectiveDetermine the maximum burst of minimum-gap frames the link absorbs without loss.
ToolingHardware traffic generator, back-to-back frame test.
MethodTransmit bursts of frames at minimum inter-frame gap, increasing burst length until loss occurs. Repeat 50 times per frame size and record the average maximum burst length in frames and in bytes.
Pass criteriaBurst tolerance at or above the vendor published port buffer depth. Results repeatable to within 10% across iterations.
TC-10 — MTU and jumbo frame validation
ObjectiveConfirm the configured MTU is honoured end to end and that oversized frames are correctly dropped.
ToolingTraffic generator, or host with ping and DF bit set.
MethodConfigure the platform maximum MTU (commonly 9216 bytes) on both interfaces. Transmit frames at exactly the MTU, one byte below, and one byte above. From a host, run ping with the do-not-fragment bit set at increasing sizes to find the effective path MTU.
Pass criteriaFrames at and below the configured MTU forward without loss or fragmentation. Frames above the MTU are dropped and counted as giants. Effective path MTU matches the configured value on both ends.
NotesMTU accounting differs between vendors — some count the L2 header and FCS, some do not. Verify empirically rather than trusting the configured number.
TC-11 — Buffer, microburst and incast behaviour
ObjectiveConfirm the link and egress port handle oversubscription and bursty traffic without excessive loss.
ToolingHardware traffic generator with multiple source ports, or multiple hosts.
MethodGenerate a many-to-one incast pattern where aggregate offered load exceeds 100 Gbps on the egress port. Test at 2:1 and 4:1 oversubscription for 5 minutes each. Then generate microbursts — short spikes to 100% line rate against a 40% background load. Record output discards, queue depth and any pause frame or PFC activity.
Pass criteriaLoss occurs only when offered load genuinely exceeds egress capacity, and is proportionate. Flow control behaves as configured. No head-of-line blocking observed on unrelated ports.
NotesIf the link will carry storage or RDMA traffic, extend this test to validate PFC and ECN marking behaviour.

5.3 Host-based validation (Phase B)

TC-12 — Multi-stream host throughput
ObjectiveValidate achievable throughput from real hosts, reflecting what applications will actually see.
Toolingiperf3 (multiple parallel instances) or preferably a DPDK-based generator.
MethodA single iperf3 process will not saturate 100GbE — it is single-threaded and CPU bound at roughly 20–40 Gbps. Run 8 to 16 parallel iperf3 server and client instances pinned to separate CPU cores on the correct NUMA node for the NIC. Enable jumbo frames, increase socket buffers, and confirm the PCIe slot provides sufficient bandwidth. Run for 300 seconds and sum the results.
Pass criteriaAggregate throughput at or above 90 Gbps TCP, or at or above 95 Gbps UDP, with loss below 0.001%. A shortfall here is far more likely to be a host tuning limit than a network fault.
NotesRecord CPU utilisation per core. If cores are saturated, the result measures the host, not the link — escalate to hardware-based testing before recording a failure.
TC-13 — RFC 6349 TCP goodput
ObjectiveEstablish achievable TCP goodput against the theoretical maximum for the path.
ToolingRFC 6349 capable tester, or iperf3 with a calculated window size.
MethodMeasure baseline round-trip time. Calculate the bandwidth-delay product and required TCP window size. Confirm the path MTU. Run the RFC 6349 test and record TCP efficiency, buffer delay percentage and the transfer time ratio.
Pass criteriaTCP efficiency at or above 99.5%. Transfer time ratio at or below 1.05. Buffer delay percentage below 10%.
NotesFor a 10 km LR4 span the bandwidth-delay product is substantial — window scaling must be enabled or results will be meaningless.

5.4 Stress and endurance

TC-14 — Optical margin stress test
ObjectiveConfirm the link retains usable margin and degrades predictably as optical power falls.
ToolingVariable optical attenuator; traffic generator holding constant load.
MethodWith a constant 50% line rate load running, insert a variable attenuator and increase attenuation in 0.5 dB steps. At each step record Rx power, pre-FEC BER, corrected and uncorrected codewords, and frame loss. Continue until the link errors, then restore.
Pass criteriaAt least 3 dB of usable margin above the point where uncorrected FEC codewords first appear. Degradation is gradual, and the link recovers fully and automatically when attenuation is removed.
NotesOptional but strongly recommended for LR4 spans and any link crossing third-party infrastructure. This is the test that predicts whether the link survives a hot summer or a slightly dirty future patch.
TC-15 — Sustained soak test
ObjectiveProve stability under continuous load over an extended period and across a full thermal cycle.
ToolingTraffic generator with a mixed frame size profile; scripted counter polling.
MethodRun a mixed frame size profile (IMIX or equivalent) bidirectionally at 80% of line rate for a minimum of 24 hours, ideally 72 hours. Poll interface counters, FEC counters and transceiver DOM readings every 5 minutes and log to file. Include at least one full day/night cycle so thermal variation is captured.
Pass criteriaZero link flaps. Zero uncorrected FEC codewords. Zero CRC or input errors. Pre-FEC BER stable and at or below 1E-6 throughout. Rx power variance under 1 dB across the period. No upward trend in corrected codeword rate.
NotesThis is the most valuable single test in the plan. Marginal optics and poor terminations frequently pass a 60-second test and fail overnight.

6. Results Record

Complete during execution. Attach raw tester output, counter logs and DOM captures as appendices.

IDTestPriorityResultEvidence / comments
TC-01Fibre endface inspectionMandatory
TC-02Optical power and DOM baselineMandatory
TC-02aFibre path characterisation (OFDR / OTDR)Mandatory
TC-03Link establishment and FEC baselineMandatory
TC-04RFC 2544 throughputMandatory
TC-05Bidirectional full-duplex line rateMandatory
TC-06RFC 2544 latencyMandatory
TC-07Frame delay variationRecommended
TC-08RFC 2544 frame loss rateRecommended
TC-09Back-to-back burst toleranceRecommended
TC-10MTU and jumbo frame validationMandatory
TC-11Buffer, microburst and incastRecommended
TC-12Multi-stream host throughputConditional
TC-13RFC 6349 TCP goodputConditional
TC-14Optical margin stress testRecommended
TC-15Sustained soak testMandatory

6.1 Throughput results — record per frame size

Frame sizeTarget fpsAchieved fps% line rateLoss (%)Avg latency (µs)
64148,809,524
12884,459,459
25645,289,855
51223,496,241
102411,973,180
12809,615,385
15188,127,438
92161,353,398

7. Interpreting Results and Common Failure Modes

SymptomMost likely causeAction
Link will not come upFEC mismatch between ends; mismatched transceiver types; incorrect MPO polarity; unsupported optic on the platformVerify FEC mode and optic type match; check the compatibility matrix; test MPO polarity
Link up but high pre-FEC BERContaminated or damaged endface; excessive path loss; bent or stressed fibreRe-inspect and clean; re-measure path loss; check bend radius
One or two lanes low on Rx powerPartially seated MPO; damaged fibre in the ribbon; dirty individual fibreReseat and re-inspect all 12 fibres; swap the patch lead
Passes at 1518 B, fails at 64 BSwitch fabric or forwarding engine limitation, not opticalConfirm against vendor datasheet packets-per-second figure; may be expected behaviour
Host test caps at 20–40 GbpsSingle-threaded generator; CPU bound; wrong NUMA node; insufficient PCIe lanesUse parallel streams pinned across cores; verify NIC NUMA affinity; check PCIe link width
Errors appear only under loadThermal issue in the transceiver or cage; marginal power delivery; inadequate airflowMonitor DOM temperature during load; check chassis airflow and fan status
Errors appear after hours of stabilityThermal drift on a link with insufficient optical marginRun TC-14 to quantify remaining margin; likely needs a cleaner or shorter path
Corrected codewords rising over timeProgressive degradation — contamination, connector wear or a failing laserDo not accept the link. Re-terminate or replace the transceiver and repeat TC-02 and TC-15

8. Risks, Safety and Rollback

8.1 Safety

Never look directly into a fibre endface or an active transceiver port. 100GBASE-LR4 operates at 1310 nm, which is invisible and can cause permanent eye damage.
  • Disable the far-end transmitter or unplug the transceiver before inspecting an endface.
  • Fit dust caps to all unused ports and unplugged leads immediately.

8.2 Risks

RiskImpactMitigation
Load testing saturates a shared fabricProduction traffic on other ports degradedTest within an approved window; verify the port is isolated from production VLANs before generating load
Repeated transceiver insertion damages the cageIntermittent faults introduced during testingMinimise insertion cycles; handle by the body, never the fibre
Test traffic leaks into the production networkBroadcast storm or MAC table pollutionPlace test ports in an isolated VLAN with no uplink; confirm before starting
Soak test runs unattended and fails silentlyWindow lost, retest requiredScript counter polling with alerting; check in at defined intervals
Monitoring alerts fire during load generationUnnecessary incident escalationSuppress alerting on the ports under test for the duration of the window

8.3 Rollback

  1. Stop all traffic generation and disconnect tester ports.
  2. Shut down the interfaces under test at both ends.
  3. Restore the pre-change interface configuration from the backup taken at Section 3.2.
  4. Remove the test VLAN and any temporary configuration.
  5. Re-enable monitoring and alerting on the affected ports.
  6. Confirm production traffic paths are unchanged and error-free before closing the window.

9. Acceptance and Sign-off

The link is accepted into production service only when all mandatory test cases return a Pass and the soak test completes with zero uncorrected FEC codewords and zero CRC errors.

RoleNameSignatureDate
Test engineer
Network lead / peer reviewer
Change approver
Service owner

9.1 References

  • IEEE 802.3ba-2010 — 100GBASE-LR4 physical layer specification.
  • IEEE 802.3bm-2015 — 100GBASE-SR4 physical layer specification.
  • IEEE 802.3 Clause 91 — RS-FEC(528,514) for 100GbE.
  • RFC 2544 — Benchmarking Methodology for Network Interconnect Devices.
  • RFC 3393 — IP Packet Delay Variation Metric.
  • RFC 6349 — Framework for TCP Throughput Testing.
  • IEC 61300-3-35 — Fibre optic connector endface visual inspection criteria.
  • QSFP28 MSA — mechanical and electrical form factor specification.