December 2012 - mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

IP migrations
by Jay Hanke Jan. 16, 2013

Jan. 16, 2013

It would appear a number of members have not yet added the new IP addresses to their MICE Configurations. If you haven't updated your config you are currently NOT able to reach all of the MICE networks. I would also recommend that you look in the looking glass and verify at least one of your next-hops is in the new range. Please update your configurations. Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

4 6

Christmas Day traffic increase
by Justin Krejci Dec. 27, 2012

Dec. 27, 2012

Guessing Akamai helped feed lots of ipad/ipod activations and ios updates yesterday. Looks like we hit the 3gig mark from just Akamai alone almost. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

2 1

Potential MICE member agreement
by Jeremy Lumby Dec. 17, 2012

Dec. 17, 2012

I have not heard much discussion of maintenance fees lately, however a recent set of two situations brought an idea to the front of my mind. Should MICE have a very basic agreement with each of its members? The reason I bring this up is that we want to keep everyone's experience with the community positive. For example the agreement could contain a requirement to upgrade your connection if it is saturated to the point of causing packet loss (which I would assume members would want to do on their own). The reason I bring this up is because in the past few months I have run across carriers that I am purchasing from that had saturated peering. The two different carriers had two completely different approaches, and the second one concerns me, and is the reason I bring up the MICE agreement. The first was with Hurricane. They had a saturated link to Charter in Chicago. Within an hour of emailing in the details of what I had found to support, they had confirmed the issue, started sending me regular updates until the link upgrade was completed. Due to the short time period that this trouble ticket lasted, I felt it went much better than I would have hoped. The second issue was with Cogent. They had, and possibly still have a saturated peering link with TimeWarner in Chicago. It took me 3 emails with support across 2 business days to get them to believe the issue existed, and then once they got on the same page as me, the would not even provide me with updates on if they will even fix the issue. I have included their final support email below. After waiting a few days hoping they would just fix it, I was forced to manipulate BGP to avoid this saturated link. The bottom line is I bring this up because even though I am a paying customer of both carriers, the second situation made me feel powerless, and that I was not valued as a customer. I realize that they probably have their legal reasons to keep me in the dark, however it has now made me an unhappy customer, and if there was a simple agreement in place about how the peering link should be maintained, then there would be a timeframe for this to be resolved within. Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: Cogent Help Desk [mailto:support@cogentco.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 7:03 PM To: jlumby(a)mnvoip.com Subject: RE: #HD0000005266692-RE: Related Case: HD0000005265974-Packet Loss for customer TWINCITY00001 Dear Cogent Customer, The latency and/or packet loss that you are experiencing to this destination is due to occasional high traffic with our peer TimeWarner . Our peering engineers have made them aware of the continuing issue and are pending their response. Cogent is ready to act as soon as we have cooperation from our peer and they are ready to move forward. There is no estimated time of resolve. Please understand that Cogent does not discuss peering specific plans with our customers. Our customer support group will not be able to provide regular updates in regard to peer maintenance. If you have any questions please feel free to contact us by e-mail at support(a)cogentco.com or by phone at 877-7COGENT (877-726-4368). Thank You, Cogent Communications T 877.726.4368, option 2 F 202.295.9061 E support(a)cogentco.com ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

3 4

Re: MICE Renumbering
by David Farmer Dec. 17, 2012

Dec. 17, 2012

I apologize for implying you hadn't done you part and thanks for fixing it, I now see you announcing the new next-hop address. On 12/16/12 20:11 , James Stahr wrote: > I can't speak for anyone else, but I thought I had completed the changes by swapping my $C secondary addresses around a few weeks ago and thought I was done. But it looks like I did the swap too quickly and even though 69.147.218.26 was now a secondary address and all of my BGP sessions were using 206.108.255.26 as the source IP, I was still advertising the next-hop using the old block. Turns out if the BGP sessions don't drop, the next-hop won't change. As I've previously stated, my $C equipment cannot advertise routes with BOTH next-hops. > > -James > > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer@umn.edu] > Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 7:46 PM > To: MICE Discuss; peering(a)wiktel.com; James Stahr; mwilker(a)jagcom.net; servicenotices(a)atomicdata.com > Cc: farmer(a)umn.edu > Subject: MICE Renumbering > > OK, I think it is now time for a little public shaming; the following MICE participants are only announcing their prefixes using the old next-hop addresses through the route servers. We were all suppose to be using only the new addresses as of two weeks ago. There is one other participant announce with both the old and the new next-hop address, we (Northern Lights GigAPOP) just stopped doing this earlier today, and are now announcing using only the new next-hop addresses. All other participants are announcing to the route servers are using only the new next-hop addresses. > > AS33362 Wikstrom Telephone Company (Wiktel) > AS25694 Atomic Data > AS15011 Jaguar Communications > AS3599 CDW/Berbee > > Please convert your peering session to announcing with the new next-hop addresses, ASAP. If for some reason you can't do this in the next week, please send a note to the MICE-DISCUSS mailing list detailing when you will be converting. > > As a reminder, here is the original cutover schedule that was emailed out several months ago: > > Addition of Address Secondary: before 10/1/2012 > New Prefix Announcements: after 10/1/2012 > Final use of old IP address next-hop: before 11/30/2012 > Removal of old IP address range: after 12/1/2012 > Project End: 12/31/2012 > > Thanks. > -- > ================================================ > David Farmer Email: farmer(a)umn.edu > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================ > -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer(a)umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================ ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

4 6

MICE Renumbering
by David Farmer Dec. 17, 2012

Dec. 17, 2012

OK, I think it is now time for a little public shaming; the following MICE participants are only announcing their prefixes using the old next-hop addresses through the route servers. We were all suppose to be using only the new addresses as of two weeks ago. There is one other participant announce with both the old and the new next-hop address, we (Northern Lights GigAPOP) just stopped doing this earlier today, and are now announcing using only the new next-hop addresses. All other participants are announcing to the route servers are using only the new next-hop addresses. AS33362 Wikstrom Telephone Company (Wiktel) AS25694 Atomic Data AS15011 Jaguar Communications AS3599 CDW/Berbee Please convert your peering session to announcing with the new next-hop addresses, ASAP. If for some reason you can't do this in the next week, please send a note to the MICE-DISCUSS mailing list detailing when you will be converting. As a reminder, here is the original cutover schedule that was emailed out several months ago: Addition of Address Secondary: before 10/1/2012 New Prefix Announcements: after 10/1/2012 Final use of old IP address next-hop: before 11/30/2012 Removal of old IP address range: after 12/1/2012 Project End: 12/31/2012 Thanks. -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer(a)umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================ ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

3 5

Graphing issue?
by Mike Bushard, Jr Dec. 12, 2012

Dec. 12, 2012

I was digging through the mice graph's. Appears we lost about a gig and a half at 18:45 or so according to the aggregate graph. I think it's related to what looks like a loss of graphing of the cns switch. Mike Bushard Jr | Network Engineer IV | Arvig | 320.256.0178 direct | 320.429.0837 Mobile Sent from my Verizon Wireless DROID RAZR by Motorola Please excuse short responses and spelling errors. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

3 3