January 2015 - mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Reid Fishler

I believe it has been paid now? Reid On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Does anyone know the status of the service contract renewal post UG15? I > feel strongly that the switching table issue should be run past Juniper > tech support. > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of > Doug McIntyre > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 4:30 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Packet loss across the exchange > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 04:19:07PM -0600, Steve Howard wrote: > > Perhaps we need another > clear ethernet-switching table > > I was able to get in there and do that.. > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Richard Laager

On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 16:55 -0600, Doug McIntyre wrote: > It doesn't look like Anthony applied the controls onto the leaf > switches, like Mankato Networks', that is currently not applied. 100 Mbps is a lot of broadcast traffic. It seems to me that it should be safe to apply this limit to ports facing remote switches. -- Richard

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Doug McIntyre

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 04:52:15PM -0600, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > Only suggestion would be to make the storm control limits consistent (i.e.: Juniper == 10% of 1g port right now, Cisco = 20%) > > Would be interested to see if same (or similar) config is on the main MICE switch ports facing the leaf switches. Per the discussion at the last member meeting about how the treat the leaf switches (as a member connection), would seem appropriate to have these limits there too (and hope that similar config is in place downstream on member run leaf switches too). It doesn't look like Anthony applied the controls onto the leaf switches, like Mankato Networks', that is currently not applied. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Jeremy Lumby

Does anyone know the status of the service contract renewal post UG15? I feel strongly that the switching table issue should be run past Juniper tech support. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 4:30 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Packet loss across the exchange On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 04:19:07PM -0600, Steve Howard wrote: > Perhaps we need another clear ethernet-switching table I was able to get in there and do that.. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Andrew Hoyos

> On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:39 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > The config is listed here: > http://micemn.net/technical.html <http://micemn.net/technical.html> Ahh, cool. Didn’t realize this was out there now. This looks totally sane and awesome, and what would be expected. Only suggestion would be to make the storm control limits consistent (i.e.: Juniper == 10% of 1g port right now, Cisco = 20%) Would be interested to see if same (or similar) config is on the main MICE switch ports facing the leaf switches. Per the discussion at the last member meeting about how the treat the leaf switches (as a member connection), would seem appropriate to have these limits there too (and hope that similar config is in place downstream on member run leaf switches too). -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Richard Laager

On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 16:24 -0600, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > I thought some sort of loop detection / storm control was configured > recently? Do we need to revisit that? Seems like shutting down a port > (even if a leaf node) at 10% broadcast limit would be better than > effecting the whole exchange. With proper config, this shouldn’t be > possible (or at least the effects minimized to a single port). The config is listed here: http://micemn.net/technical.html Specifically: set ethernet-switching-options storm-control interface X/X/X bandwidth 100000 - and on Cisco - storm-control broadcast level 20.00 I can't say personally whether that's actually applied, but I believe that's been completed. Maybe it wasn't applied to the ports facing remote switches. Can anyone with access to the switches comment on that? I'm not sure off the top of my head what level of traffic these numbers represent. -- Richard

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Larry Patterson

I agree. We all need to make efforts to improve the stability of the exchange. This is causing Atomic issues with reliability and we are considering bypassing the exchange for our critical traffic. ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)GMAIL.COM> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 4:24 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Packet loss across the exchange I thought some sort of loop detection / storm control was configured recently? Do we need to revisit that? Seems like shutting down a port (even if a leaf node) at 10% broadcast limit would be better than effecting the whole exchange. With proper config, this shouldn't be possible (or at least the effects minimized to a single port). I'd be happy to volunteer time/join a team to help accomplish. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com> Larry Patterson CTO ---- Atomic Data // Safe. Simple. Smart.(tm) 615 North 3rd Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 Main // 612.466.2000 Direct // 612.466.2080 Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/AtomicDataCenters> // Twitter<http://twitter.com/AtomicData> // LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/atomic-data> On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:17 PM, Levi Pederson <levipederson(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET<mailto:levipederson@MANKATONETWORKS.NET>> wrote: All, We're shifting some traffic onto our 10Gig link, and accidentally created an L2 Loop within the Exchange. We've since rectified it. Thank you, Levi Pederson Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net<mailto:levipederson@mankatonetworks.net> [http://www.mankatonetworks.com/images/mn_logo_email.png] On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: Just wondering if others are seeing packet loss across the exchange that just started Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211<tel:612-355-7740%20x211> Direct: 612-392-6814<tel:612-392-6814> EFax: 952-873-7425<tel:952-873-7425> jlumby(a)mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com> ________________________________ 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

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Jeremy Lumby

Something is still wrong with the exchange. I wonder if the loop tripped off the forwarding issue. There is no reason for there to be hundreds of megs of traffic hitting the route servers From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Levi Pederson Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 4:18 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Packet loss across the exchange All, We're shifting some traffic onto our 10Gig link, and accidentally created an L2 Loop within the Exchange. We've since rectified it. Thank you, Levi Pederson Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: Just wondering if others are seeing packet loss across the exchange that just started Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Doug McIntyre

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 04:19:07PM -0600, Steve Howard wrote: > Perhaps we need another clear ethernet-switching table I was able to get in there and do that.. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Andrew Hoyos

I thought some sort of loop detection / storm control was configured recently? Do we need to revisit that? Seems like shutting down a port (even if a leaf node) at 10% broadcast limit would be better than effecting the whole exchange. With proper config, this shouldn’t be possible (or at least the effects minimized to a single port). I’d be happy to volunteer time/join a team to help accomplish. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:17 PM, Levi Pederson <levipederson(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET> wrote: > > All, > > We're shifting some traffic onto our 10Gig link, and accidentally created an L2 Loop within the Exchange. We've since rectified it. > > Thank you, > > > Levi Pederson > Mankato Networks LLC > cell | 612.481.0769 > work | 612.787.7392 > levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net <mailto:levipederson@mankatonetworks.net> > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com <mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: > Just wondering if others are seeing packet loss across the exchange that just started > > Jeremy Lumby > Minnesota VoIP > 9217 17th Ave S > Suite 216 > Bloomington, MN 55425 > Main: 612-355-7740 x211 <tel:612-355-7740%20x211> > Direct: 612-392-6814 <tel:612-392-6814> > EFax: 952-873-7425 <tel:952-873-7425> > jlumby(a)mnvoip.com <mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com> > > > 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>

Jan. 30, 2015