May 2011 - mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Traffic between 10Gig & 1Gig Switches

by Steve Howard

What type? LX? On 05/18/2011 05:27 PM, Jay Hanke wrote: >> Was I mistaken is reading the original donation note about the Juniper switches that Juniper included the 10GE uplink module or did it also include optics? > There are a couple of 10G SFP+ modules included along with the Juniper > switch. I don't think there were any 1 G optics. > > jay > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

May 18, 2011

Re: Traffic between 10Gig & 1Gig Switches

by Jay Hanke

> Was I mistaken is reading the original donation note about the Juniper switches that Juniper included the 10GE uplink module or did it also include optics? There are a couple of 10G SFP+ modules included along with the Juniper switch. I don't think there were any 1 G optics. jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

May 18, 2011

Re: Traffic between 10Gig & 1Gig Switches

by Nevin Lyne

Guys >>2) Use one of the new Juniper switches with a 10Gig interface and >>connect that to a 10Gig interface on the existing MICE 10Gig switch, >>then move some of the 1Gig members over to those ports. This would >>require purchase of 10Gig optics for the Juniper and the existing 10Gig >>MICE switch; > > This will probably be happening. Was I mistaken is reading the original donation note about the Juniper switches that Juniper included the 10GE uplink module or did it also include optics? If it did not include one or both of those I would be willing to donate some money towards the uplink module & optics needed on both ends. -- Nevin Lyne -- Founder / Director of Technology -- EngineHosting.com -- 888-576-HOST or 612-234-8964 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

May 18, 2011

Re: Traffic between 10Gig & 1Gig Switches

by Mike Horwath

On 5/18/11 4:52 PM, "Steve Howard" <showard(a)PAULBUNYAN.NET> wrote: >The traffic to/from the U shot up today. I'm guessing that is CDN >related? > >The link between the CNS switch and the MICE switch shot up to ~850Mbps >today. Too bad that is only a single gig connection! Changing later when the 2 new switches go into place. >It is great to have the traffic on the exchange, but we should probably >deal with this nearly saturated link fast. Here are a few possible >solutions: > >1) Add another Gig connection. We'd probably need to pay FWR for a >cross-connect (CNS is paying for the first one) with this option; > >2) Use one of the new Juniper switches with a 10Gig interface and >connect that to a 10Gig interface on the existing MICE 10Gig switch, >then move some of the 1Gig members over to those ports. This would >require purchase of 10Gig optics for the Juniper and the existing 10Gig >MICE switch; This will probably be happening. >4) Encourage MICE members on the 1Gig switch to upgrade to a 10Gig >connection; Don't see how that helps. >5) Ask the U to not advertise some of the members on the 1Gig switch to >CDNs (if that is the cause of the traffic load). This is a bummer if >you are one of the networks that gets left out. I really don't like >this option -- we are finally getting real traffic on the exchange and >then we'd be cutting back. That'd be silly. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau(a)iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkeley Fortune ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

May 18, 2011

Re: Traffic between 10Gig & 1Gig Switches

by Jeremy Lumby

Looking at the graphs, it is apparent that most of the traffic is going to one MICE member. I would believe that they would be inclined to want to move to a 10 gig link since it is really benefiting them, and since it is the same fiber cross connect, the only real cost would be the 10G optics. The second thing that is much more long term is I believe that the link between the switches should be 10Gig. This would not allow a single 1Gig member to do so much unexpected traffic that effects the exchange as a whole, and we would be able to watch trends, and adjust as needed before the situation became urgent. Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Howard Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:52 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Traffic between 10Gig & 1Gig Switches The traffic to/from the U shot up today. I'm guessing that is CDN related? The link between the CNS switch and the MICE switch shot up to ~850Mbps today. Too bad that is only a single gig connection! It is great to have the traffic on the exchange, but we should probably deal with this nearly saturated link fast. Here are a few possible solutions: 1) Add another Gig connection. We'd probably need to pay FWR for a cross-connect (CNS is paying for the first one) with this option; 2) Use one of the new Juniper switches with a 10Gig interface and connect that to a 10Gig interface on the existing MICE 10Gig switch, then move some of the 1Gig members over to those ports. This would require purchase of 10Gig optics for the Juniper and the existing 10Gig MICE switch; 3) Move some of the higher bandwidth MICE members to the 1Gig ports on the 10Gig switch. Would this increase the FWR cross-connect charges for those members if they are going from copper to fiber? 4) Encourage MICE members on the 1Gig switch to upgrade to a 10Gig connection; 5) Ask the U to not advertise some of the members on the 1Gig switch to CDNs (if that is the cause of the traffic load). This is a bummer if you are one of the networks that gets left out. I really don't like this option -- we are finally getting real traffic on the exchange and then we'd be cutting back. What does everybody think? Any other suggestions? ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

May 18, 2011

Re: Traffic between 10Gig & 1Gig Switches

by David Farmer

I looks like it is going to SDN and Airstream for the most part. There are two short term solutions; 1. move those to the CNS switch, I have Copper SFPs I can loan if necessary. 2. I can stop announcing those AS to the Akamai route collector. The longer term solution is to get the Juniper switches installed. On 5/18/11 16:52 CDT, Steve Howard wrote: > The traffic to/from the U shot up today. I'm guessing that is CDN related? > > The link between the CNS switch and the MICE switch shot up to ~850Mbps > today. Too bad that is only a single gig connection! > > It is great to have the traffic on the exchange, but we should probably > deal with this nearly saturated link fast. Here are a few possible > solutions: > > 1) Add another Gig connection. We'd probably need to pay FWR for a > cross-connect (CNS is paying for the first one) with this option; > > 2) Use one of the new Juniper switches with a 10Gig interface and > connect that to a 10Gig interface on the existing MICE 10Gig switch, > then move some of the 1Gig members over to those ports. This would > require purchase of 10Gig optics for the Juniper and the existing 10Gig > MICE switch; > > 3) Move some of the higher bandwidth MICE members to the 1Gig ports on > the 10Gig switch. Would this increase the FWR cross-connect charges > for those members if they are going from copper to fiber? > > 4) Encourage MICE members on the 1Gig switch to upgrade to a 10Gig > connection; > > 5) Ask the U to not advertise some of the members on the 1Gig switch to > CDNs (if that is the cause of the traffic load). This is a bummer if > you are one of the networks that gets left out. I really don't like > this option -- we are finally getting real traffic on the exchange and > then we'd be cutting back. > > What does everybody think? Any other suggestions? > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

May 18, 2011

Traffic between 10Gig & 1Gig Switches

by Steve Howard

The traffic to/from the U shot up today. I'm guessing that is CDN related? The link between the CNS switch and the MICE switch shot up to ~850Mbps today. Too bad that is only a single gig connection! It is great to have the traffic on the exchange, but we should probably deal with this nearly saturated link fast. Here are a few possible solutions: 1) Add another Gig connection. We'd probably need to pay FWR for a cross-connect (CNS is paying for the first one) with this option; 2) Use one of the new Juniper switches with a 10Gig interface and connect that to a 10Gig interface on the existing MICE 10Gig switch, then move some of the 1Gig members over to those ports. This would require purchase of 10Gig optics for the Juniper and the existing 10Gig MICE switch; 3) Move some of the higher bandwidth MICE members to the 1Gig ports on the 10Gig switch. Would this increase the FWR cross-connect charges for those members if they are going from copper to fiber? 4) Encourage MICE members on the 1Gig switch to upgrade to a 10Gig connection; 5) Ask the U to not advertise some of the members on the 1Gig switch to CDNs (if that is the cause of the traffic load). This is a bummer if you are one of the networks that gets left out. I really don't like this option -- we are finally getting real traffic on the exchange and then we'd be cutting back. What does everybody think? Any other suggestions? ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

May 18, 2011

WOW!!!

by David Farmer

Between 1:30 and 2:00 today Akamai started sending traffic to someone (or multiple someones) on MICE from our 10G connected stack of servers to the tune of about 800Mbps or more, and its still going. How full are the links between the switches? :) let me know if I need to do something on my side. http://perfsonar.northernlights.gigapop.net/gui/cacti/graph.php?action=view… FYI, those graphs are in MBytes/sec multiply by 8 for Mbps. COOL!!! -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

May 18, 2011

Bandwidth Testing Tool

by David Farmer

On 5/18/11 10:13 CDT, Doug McIntyre wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:43:11AM -0500, David Farmer wrote: >> We are routing traffic now, IPv4 only for now. I need to clean up a >> number of route map issues for IPv6 before routing it. I should have >> that cleaned up tomorrow. > > Cool, looking good here. > > Nice to have sub millisec pings to the U of MN network. Here is a bandwidth testing tool you can use and tell you more than just round trip time. http://infotech-sv-62.ggnet.umn.edu:7123/ Check out the "More Details" and "Statistics" buttons too, lots of cool network engineer level details. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

May 18, 2011

Re: UMN connected?

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 12:43:11AM -0500, David Farmer wrote: > We are routing traffic now, IPv4 only for now. I need to clean up a > number of route map issues for IPv6 before routing it. I should have > that cleaned up tomorrow. Cool, looking good here. Nice to have sub millisec pings to the U of MN network. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> -- ipHouse/Goldengate/Bitstream/ProNS -- Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

May 18, 2011