September 2011 - mice-discuss

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Steve Howard

Jay, On 09/20/2011 05:50 PM, Jay Hanke wrote: >> Unfortunately, that results in a cross-connect charge in addition to the >> ethernet transport. Doesn't exactly help to encourage membership. > I was thinking you would connect them to the switch in the CNS rack... > That works great for CNS! I was thinking of other providers that might want to do the same thing. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Jay Hanke

> Unfortunately, that results in a cross-connect charge in addition to the > ethernet transport. Doesn't exactly help to encourage membership. I was thinking you would connect them to the switch in the CNS rack... 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. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Owen DeLong

On Sep 20, 2011, at 2:46 PM, David Farmer wrote: > On 9/20/11 14:37 CDT, Jay Hanke wrote: >>> CNS has received a request from one of its customers for a direct connection >>> to MICE. >> >> This has come up before. I've been recommending that the carriers sell >> it as Ethernet transport and then pop into a "fresh" MICE access port >> so each carrier ends up with their own port. >> >> I don't see any problem placing a remote switch outside the Twin >> Cities. I would disable spanning tree. If we haven't already, we >> should disable spanning tree in the core switches or place a guard so >> the port goes down if a BPDU comes in. > > NO!!!!! DON'T Disable Spanning Tree. But we do need to think about Root Bridge and Root Guard issues. But Spanning tree is important in loop prevention, accidents do occur and spanning tree and prevent one of these accidents from turning into a broadcast storm. > > The best Idea is to design a loop free topology have spanning tree running to ensure the no loops occur by accident, which they more than likely will. If you're going to do that, make sure that spanning tree is running in fast convergence mode or you are asking for different brands of trouble. Unfortunately, fast converging spanning tree tends to be vendor-specific. Owen > >> Jay >> >> ######################################################################## >> >> 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 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Steve Howard

On 09/20/2011 02:51 PM, Justin Krejci wrote: >> What is/was the original intention of the remote switches in the first >> place if not for extending the reach of the MICE network? Getting people >> onto the main/core switch is most preferably for flat simplicity... KISS >> IMO For the CNS switch, it was a requirement for the donation. CNS provides free use of the MICE 10Gig switch and power, provided that the switch stays in CNS space. CNS also pays for one cross-connect that was originally intended to connect the MICE switch to the main switch. I think that FWR donated the cross connect from CNS to the main switch (thanks Mike!) and CNS pays for the cross connect to the GigaPOP instead. (?) I can't recall how the Mankato Networks switch originally came online, but it was part of the plan from the beginning. Perhaps Jay can refresh our memory. I do like that it is there because it gives an option for people that might not otherwise be able to justify the cost of a cross connect to get connected to MICE. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by David Farmer

On 9/20/11 14:37 CDT, Jay Hanke wrote: >> CNS has received a request from one of its customers for a direct connection >> to MICE. > > This has come up before. I've been recommending that the carriers sell > it as Ethernet transport and then pop into a "fresh" MICE access port > so each carrier ends up with their own port. > > I don't see any problem placing a remote switch outside the Twin > Cities. I would disable spanning tree. If we haven't already, we > should disable spanning tree in the core switches or place a guard so > the port goes down if a BPDU comes in. NO!!!!! DON'T Disable Spanning Tree. But we do need to think about Root Bridge and Root Guard issues. But Spanning tree is important in loop prevention, accidents do occur and spanning tree and prevent one of these accidents from turning into a broadcast storm. The best Idea is to design a loop free topology have spanning tree running to ensure the no loops occur by accident, which they more than likely will. > Jay > > ######################################################################## > > 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

Sept. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Steve Howard

Jay, On 09/20/2011 02:37 PM, Jay Hanke wrote: >> CNS has received a request from one of its customers for a direct connection >> to MICE. > This has come up before. I've been recommending that the carriers sell > it as Ethernet transport and then pop into a "fresh" MICE access port > so each carrier ends up with their own port. > Unfortunately, that results in a cross-connect charge in addition to the ethernet transport. Doesn't exactly help to encourage membership. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Justin Krejci

On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 14:37 -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > > CNS has received a request from one of its customers for a direct connection > > to MICE. > > This has come up before. I've been recommending that the carriers sell > it as Ethernet transport and then pop into a "fresh" MICE access port > so each carrier ends up with their own port. What is/was the original intention of the remote switches in the first place if not for extending the reach of the MICE network? Getting people onto the main/core switch is most preferably for flat simplicity... KISS IMO > > I don't see any problem placing a remote switch outside the Twin > Cities. I would disable spanning tree. If we haven't already, we > should disable spanning tree in the core switches or place a guard so > the port goes down if a BPDU comes in. +1 for properly managed STP unless/until it crosses administrative boundaries. Managing a shared STP domain between unrelated entities is messy. It only takes one port with an stp bpdu filter to generate a bad day that even a bpdu guard can't protect against. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Jay Hanke

> CNS has received a request from one of its customers for a direct connection > to MICE. This has come up before. I've been recommending that the carriers sell it as Ethernet transport and then pop into a "fresh" MICE access port so each carrier ends up with their own port. I don't see any problem placing a remote switch outside the Twin Cities. I would disable spanning tree. If we haven't already, we should disable spanning tree in the core switches or place a guard so the port goes down if a BPDU comes in. 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. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Owen DeLong

I would say that so long as we are careful to avoid creating loops in the topology and take proper steps to insure that fault isolation can be accomplished in the event of a problem, this is a good thing. Owen On Sep 20, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Steve Howard wrote: > Hello, > > CNS has received a request from one of its customers for a direct connection to MICE. > > If the consensus is to move forward, we could haul the MICE VLAN to that customer (and presumably to any other CNS member or customer who wants a direct MICE connection). This could result in the MICE VLAN appearing at various places throughout the region. > > I think that this could be a good thing for MICE, but if not managed correctly, it has the potential to be troublesome for problem isolation. MICE already has remote switches at 511. Other exchanges often have switches connected throughout their city. In this case, it is a little of both – except that the individual remote connections could be farther away in different directions. Does that matter? > > Whether we add remote connections or not, I'd like to see us come up with a plan for spanning tree. It probably would be best to make sure that our spanning tree root is one of the MICE 10Gig switches (probably the main one?). Or, alternatively, we could disable/filter spanning tree altogether and do MAC filtering for loop prevention. I think that spanning tree has its limitations, but it is much easier to maintain then MAC filtering. It looks like the current spanning tree root is 00:0c:db:fe:af:00 which looks like a Brocade device. Hmmm... We might want to change that... > > What does everybody think? Are there better ways to do this? > > Thanks, > Steve > > 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. 20, 2011

Remote MICE members?

by Steve Howard

Hello, CNS has received a request from one of its customers for a direct connection to MICE. If the consensus is to move forward, we could haul the MICE VLAN to that customer (and presumably to any other CNS member or customer who wants a direct MICE connection). This could result in the MICE VLAN appearing at various places throughout the region. I think that this could be a good thing for MICE, but if not managed correctly, it has the potential to be troublesome for problem isolation. MICE already has remote switches at 511. Other exchanges often have switches connected throughout their city. In this case, it is a little of both – except that the individual remote connections could be farther away in different directions. Does that matter? Whether we add remote connections or not, I'd like to see us come up with a plan for spanning tree. It probably would be best to make sure that our spanning tree root is one of the MICE 10Gig switches (probably the main one?). Or, alternatively, we could disable/filter spanning tree altogether and do MAC filtering for loop prevention. I think that spanning tree has its limitations, but it is much easier to maintain then MAC filtering. It looks like the current spanning tree root is 00:0c:db:fe:af:00 which looks like a Brocade device. Hmmm... We might want to change that... What does everybody think? Are there better ways to do this? Thanks, Steve ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2011