February 2019 - mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Zayo MICE Remote

by Richard Laager

The 20G backhaul from the Zayo MICE remote in Belle Plaine to the MICE Core Switch has recently exceeded 17G, 18G, and even 19G on the Cacti graphs. I initially reported this to Zayo on January 14th. We preemptively allocated another 10G port on January 17th in an attempt to streamline the upgrade. I asked for a status update on January 24th. Today, I contacted Zayo again stressing the seriousness and urgency of the situation. The upgrade does seem to be moving forward again, but Zayo has not provided an estimate on when the upgrade will be complete. Given that the backhaul hit 19.73G last night, I'm bringing this to the attention of the participants, who may wish to take some action (e.g. shifting traffic). -- Richard

Feb. 19, 2019

SFN Remote Switch Activated

by Jay Hanke

The SFN Remote switch has been activated. -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Feb. 15, 2019

Re: MICE Google Traffic

by Mike Wilker

Thanks for the update Jeremy. Thank You, Mike Wilker CTO ( Office: (507) 214-0259 - Email: mwilker(a)jagcom.net www.JagCom.net <http://www.jagcom.net/> 213 South Oak Avenue Owatonna, MN 55060 On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 7:31 AM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > I just got the official word back from Google that everything should be > stable. > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] *On Behalf > Of *AnthonyAnderberg(a)nuvera.net > *Sent:* Friday, February 01, 2019 11:44 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Google Traffic > > > > It looks like Google’s MICE traffic levels are significantly higher > tonight - not as high as they’d been, but I suspect a lot of us are still > suppressing our prefixes to them at MICE. > > > > Have they confirmed anything or does anyone who was having trouble and is > using Google msp5 at MICE currently still have issues? > > > > Thanks, > > anthony > > > > [image: Anthony_Anderberg] <https://www.nuvera.net/> > > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 >

Feb. 12, 2019

Re: MICE Google Traffic

by Jeremy Lumby

I just got the official word back from Google that everything should be stable. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of AnthonyAnderberg(a)nuvera.net Sent: Friday, February 01, 2019 11:44 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Google Traffic It looks like Google’s MICE traffic levels are significantly higher tonight - not as high as they’d been, but I suspect a lot of us are still suppressing our prefixes to them at MICE. Have they confirmed anything or does anyone who was having trouble and is using Google msp5 at MICE currently still have issues? Thanks, anthony To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Feb. 12, 2019

Re: Strange log message on our Arista regarding MICE traffic

by Frank Bulk

Aren't the two log lines indicating that our router saw the next hop from the MICE RR's? Can the RR's be configured to filter out "bad" addresses? Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Friday, February 08, 2019 3:55 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Strange log message on our Arista regarding MICE traffic On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 02:55:08PM -0600, Richard Laager wrote: >On 2/8/19 2:30 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: >> I saw the following Thursday afternoon: >> >> Feb 7 15:21:54 207.32.15.28 Rib: mpbgp_recv_mpreach: peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 (AS 53679) link-local next hop fe80::e2ac:f1ef:fe4b:d93b%10000 improper, ignoring this next-hop >> Feb 7 15:22:09 207.32.15.28 Rib: mpbgp_recv_mpreach: peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 (AS 53679) link-local next hop fe80::e2ac:f1ef:fe4b:d93b%10000 improper, ignoring this next-hop > >That link local address seems to (other than a 2 vs 0) match MAC address >e0ac.f14b.d93b, which is currently in my ARP cache for 206.108.255.119, >which is Paul Bunyan Telephone. I wonder if their router advertised a >link local nexthop to the route servers. If Frank is setting the packet on his router from fe80::e2ac:f1ef:fe4b:d39b, it probably came directly across the wire, not bounced off the route-reflectors, which would add in their own link-local address. >Perhaps the route servers should be filtering the next hop? At a >minimum, it seems like we should limit it to the MICE address space. But >if trivial to implement, it would be best if the nexthop was that of the >peer. They do have some filtering. The next-hop for anything coming in should be the peer address already? In this case, it looks like some freaky BGP went out, and Frank's router ignored it. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Feb. 8, 2019

Re: Strange log message on our Arista regarding MICE traffic

by Doug McIntyre

On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 02:55:08PM -0600, Richard Laager wrote: >On 2/8/19 2:30 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: >> I saw the following Thursday afternoon: >> >> Feb 7 15:21:54 207.32.15.28 Rib: mpbgp_recv_mpreach: peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 (AS 53679) link-local next hop fe80::e2ac:f1ef:fe4b:d93b%10000 improper, ignoring this next-hop >> Feb 7 15:22:09 207.32.15.28 Rib: mpbgp_recv_mpreach: peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 (AS 53679) link-local next hop fe80::e2ac:f1ef:fe4b:d93b%10000 improper, ignoring this next-hop > >That link local address seems to (other than a 2 vs 0) match MAC address >e0ac.f14b.d93b, which is currently in my ARP cache for 206.108.255.119, >which is Paul Bunyan Telephone. I wonder if their router advertised a >link local nexthop to the route servers. If Frank is setting the packet on his router from fe80::e2ac:f1ef:fe4b:d39b, it probably came directly across the wire, not bounced off the route-reflectors, which would add in their own link-local address. >Perhaps the route servers should be filtering the next hop? At a >minimum, it seems like we should limit it to the MICE address space. But >if trivial to implement, it would be best if the nexthop was that of the >peer. They do have some filtering. The next-hop for anything coming in should be the peer address already? In this case, it looks like some freaky BGP went out, and Frank's router ignored it. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Feb. 8, 2019

Re: Strange log message on our Arista regarding MICE traffic

by Steve Howard

Feb. 8, 2019

Re: Strange log message on our Arista regarding MICE traffic

by Richard Laager

On 2/8/19 2:30 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > I saw the following Thursday afternoon: > > Feb 7 15:21:54 207.32.15.28 Rib: mpbgp_recv_mpreach: peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 (AS 53679) link-local next hop fe80::e2ac:f1ef:fe4b:d93b%10000 improper, ignoring this next-hop > Feb 7 15:22:09 207.32.15.28 Rib: mpbgp_recv_mpreach: peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 (AS 53679) link-local next hop fe80::e2ac:f1ef:fe4b:d93b%10000 improper, ignoring this next-hop That link local address seems to (other than a 2 vs 0) match MAC address e0ac.f14b.d93b, which is currently in my ARP cache for 206.108.255.119, which is Paul Bunyan Telephone. I wonder if their router advertised a link local nexthop to the route servers. Perhaps the route servers should be filtering the next hop? At a minimum, it seems like we should limit it to the MICE address space. But if trivial to implement, it would be best if the nexthop was that of the peer. -- Richard

Feb. 8, 2019

Re: Strange log message on our Arista regarding MICE traffic

by Doug McIntyre

On Fri, Feb 08, 2019 at 08:30:04PM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: >I saw the following Thursday afternoon: > >Feb 7 15:21:54 207.32.15.28 Rib: mpbgp_recv_mpreach: peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 (AS 53679) link-local next hop fe80::e2ac:f1ef:fe4b:d93b%10000 improper, ignoring this next-hop >Feb 7 15:22:09 207.32.15.28 Rib: mpbgp_recv_mpreach: peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 (AS 53679) link-local next hop fe80::e2ac:f1ef:fe4b:d93b%10000 improper, ignoring this next-hop > >Was someone working on the router reflectors? No, nobody was logged into them on 2/7/2018 at all. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Feb. 8, 2019

Strange log message on our Arista regarding MICE traffic

by Frank Bulk

I saw the following Thursday afternoon: Feb 7 15:21:54 207.32.15.28 Rib: mpbgp_recv_mpreach: peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 (AS 53679) link-local next hop fe80::e2ac:f1ef:fe4b:d93b%10000 improper, ignoring this next-hop Feb 7 15:22:09 207.32.15.28 Rib: mpbgp_recv_mpreach: peer 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 (AS 53679) link-local next hop fe80::e2ac:f1ef:fe4b:d93b%10000 improper, ignoring this next-hop Was someone working on the router reflectors? Frank

Feb. 8, 2019