September 2011 - mice-discuss

Looking Glasses

by Richard Laager

I'd like to see http://micemn.net/participants.html contain links to the carriers' looking glass websites, when they have one. Is that something we can do? I can certainly do some Googling and provide an initial diff for that page, if desired. Is there a looking glass running on the route servers? Richard ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 27, 2011

Re: Marketing Stuff

by Jay Hanke

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:44 PM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)aitech.net> wrote: > I wouldn't mind working on it. Stretch my artsy-fartsy legs a little bit... > Also--AITech would be happy to take care of having them printed if/whenever needed. Awesome, I think it might be nice to have a list of participants. jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 24, 2011

Re: Marketing Stuff

by Matthew Beckwell

I wouldn't mind working on it. Stretch my artsy-fartsy legs a little bit... Also--AITech would be happy to take care of having them printed if/whenever needed. ~Matthew -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Howard Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2011 9:44 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Marketing Stuff Jay, Here is a thing that one of our Marketing guys made several months ago. If anybody would be willing to offer suggestions, we'd be happy to change it. Or, if somebody wants to work on it, we can send it to them. Thanks, Steve On 09/21/2011 08:52 AM, Jay Hanke wrote: > Is someone willing to make up a one page flyer explaining MICE? It > would be handed out at trade shows etc... > > 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 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 22, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Steve Howard

Anthony, Things look good in the MICE switch: Spanning tree enabled protocol rstp Root ID Priority 4096 Address 0019.e254.f340 Cost 2 Port 34 (TenGigabitEthernet0/10) Hello Time 2 sec Max Age 20 sec Forward Delay 15 sec Thanks, Steve On 09/21/2011 06:17 AM, Anthony Anderberg wrote: > > > Frankly, I'm surprised at the outpouring of love for spanning-tree > > > > I don't know anyone that loves spanning-tree, most people > > have more of an abusive older-brother sort of relationship. > > > > I'd lean toward STP being a necessary evil in a L2 environment > > where physical control isn't absolute for all the reasons David > > mentioned. I also like a bunch of the things Andrew brought up, > > but don't have a good feel for what the administration would > > feel like. It seems like I've spent the last 20 years either > > being disappointed in the performance of simple designs or being > > disappointed by the unpredictability of complicated designs... > > > > Anyway, this morning I've changed the main Juniper switch bridge > > priority and it appears to have asserted itself as the root. > > Steve/Jay/Doug - can you guys confirm that things look correct > > on your switches, I'll send you the Juniper's current settings > > off-list. Beyond that we can evolve in the direction the group > > thinks is best. > > > > Cheers, > > Anthony > > > > Anthony Anderberg > > Sr. Systems Analyst > > NU-Telecom > > 320-234-5239 > > anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > <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

Sept. 21, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 11:17:35AM +0000, Anthony Anderberg wrote: > Steve/Jay/Doug - can you guys confirm that things look correct > on your switches... The cisco 4506 was setup for portfast/bpdufilter, switching it around would take the one remaining link on it down for a short period. So right now it thinks it is root because there are no other BPDUs allowed into it.. AFAIK, it is going away as soon as SDN switches over/upgrades their link? Probably not worth the disruption at this point in time. -- 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

Sept. 21, 2011

Re: Marketing Stuff

by Steve Howard

Jay, Here is a thing that one of our Marketing guys made several months ago. If anybody would be willing to offer suggestions, we'd be happy to change it. Or, if somebody wants to work on it, we can send it to them. Thanks, Steve On 09/21/2011 08:52 AM, Jay Hanke wrote: > Is someone willing to make up a one page flyer explaining MICE? It > would be handed out at trade shows etc... > > 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

Sept. 21, 2011

Marketing Stuff

by Jay Hanke

Is someone willing to make up a one page flyer explaining MICE? It would be handed out at trade shows etc... Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 21, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Anthony Anderberg

> Frankly, I'm surprised at the outpouring of love for spanning-tree I don't know anyone that loves spanning-tree, most people have more of an abusive older-brother sort of relationship. I'd lean toward STP being a necessary evil in a L2 environment where physical control isn't absolute for all the reasons David mentioned. I also like a bunch of the things Andrew brought up, but don't have a good feel for what the administration would feel like. It seems like I've spent the last 20 years either being disappointed in the performance of simple designs or being disappointed by the unpredictability of complicated designs... Anyway, this morning I've changed the main Juniper switch bridge priority and it appears to have asserted itself as the root. Steve/Jay/Doug - can you guys confirm that things look correct on your switches, I'll send you the Juniper's current settings off-list. Beyond that we can evolve in the direction the group thinks is best. Cheers, Anthony Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst NU-Telecom 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 21, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Andrew Hoyos

On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:18 PM, David Farmer wrote: > However, you still run spanning-tree to catch mistakes, they will happen and spanning tree will keep them from melting the network. When the network is built and is functioning as designed, spanning-tree has nothing to converge, the network has a loop free topology. In this design, spanning-tree is only there to ensure the network is actually built and actually functioning as designed. I'd somewhat agree here, *but*, there are alternatives to spanning-tree in the IX network - like storm control, limiting to 1 mac addr per port, putting naughty ports in the penalty box (err-disable/shutdown), etc. As an additional comment to my previous e-mail, I don't see issues with spanning-tree as a safety net, but then the proper steps need to be taken on the participant L2 devices to limit the interaction between the STP domains. If we have (I'm assuming) a participant Brocade l2 device acting as the STP root for the IX network, that's an issue that needs to get resolved (ie: bpdufilter towards participant ports, etc). This is an IP exchange, so we really should only be seeing unicast/mcast IP traffic, not layer2 protocols and/or broadcast traffic (save for ARP/ND packets). AMS-IX has some very good guidelines about how to get your layer2 devices to be quiet, located here: http://www.ams-ix.net/config-guide/ ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 21, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Jay Hanke

>> Can someone take it on to make a design recommendation? > SNIP Spanning tree love-hate Monologue Excellent! I believe you just volunteered to propose a solution! :) Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 21, 2011