April 2021 - mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Richard Laager

On 4/27/21 12:01 AM, Doug McIntyre wrote: > So, you're looking to lower it from 500ms down to 50ms when most of > the recomendations are a bottom limit of 150ms? That raises a good point. BFD negotiates the /higher/ of the two configured timeouts. So even if Frank has his set crazy low, if the route servers have a minimum of 500 ms, that's what they'll end up using. Frank, can you check "show bfd neighbor detail" or similar on your router? Are you negotiating 500 ms timeouts with the route servers? That would make the detection time 1500 ms (1.5s), which might suggest we're on the wrong track with the low timeouts causing the bouncing. (Or, maybe it still is that, meaning the disruption lasted long enough?) -- Richard

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Doug McIntyre

So, you're looking to lower it from 500ms down to 50ms when most of the recomendations are a bottom limit of 150ms? On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:37:52AM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: >So can we change the route reflectors to use 50 msec? > >Frank > >From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Ben Wiechman >Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:47 PM >To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th > >IOS-XR bottoms out at 15ms. IOS/XE has typically been 150ms. > >Agreed that in general unless you have <50ms failover requirements 150ms+ is probably a good compromise. > >Ben Wiechman >Director of IP Strategy and Engineering >Direct: 320.256.0184 >Cell: 320.247.3224 >ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com<mailto:ben.wiechman@arvig.com> >150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com<http://arvig.com> > >On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 17:57 Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>> wrote: >On Apr 21, 2021, at 5:52 PM, David Farmer <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:36 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com<mailto:rlaager@wiktel.com>> wrote: >On 4/21/21 3:04 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: >> And to follow up on my previous question, is Arista falling bit short in >> our situation, by not supporting a receive interval of 10 msec? > >I've had a couple vendors suggest not to make it that short. Brocade, >for example, suggested 150 ms as a minimum. Arista was more vague, but >from your error message, apparently their implementation doesn't even >try to do less than 50 ms. > >Maybe think about this from another perspective, 10 ms is 100 times a second, 50 ms is 20 times a second, and 150 ms just over 6 times a second. I think 10 ms is probably being a little impatient. > >Not the mention, the added CPU load on both ends dealing with said BFD packets 100x/sec. > >We’ve generally seen 50-250ms used in practice. 10ms does seem super aggressive. We use 250ms x 3 here for backbone links and peers/transit that support BFD, and 750ms x 3 facing internal gear. > > >— >Andrew Hoyos >hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.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

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Frank Bulk

So can we change the route reflectors to use 50 msec? Frank From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Ben Wiechman Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:47 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th IOS-XR bottoms out at 15ms. IOS/XE has typically been 150ms. Agreed that in general unless you have <50ms failover requirements 150ms+ is probably a good compromise. Ben Wiechman Director of IP Strategy and Engineering Direct: 320.256.0184 Cell: 320.247.3224 ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com<mailto:ben.wiechman@arvig.com> 150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com<http://arvig.com> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 17:57 Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>> wrote: On Apr 21, 2021, at 5:52 PM, David Farmer <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> wrote: On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:36 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com<mailto:rlaager@wiktel.com>> wrote: On 4/21/21 3:04 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > And to follow up on my previous question, is Arista falling bit short in > our situation, by not supporting a receive interval of 10 msec? I've had a couple vendors suggest not to make it that short. Brocade, for example, suggested 150 ms as a minimum. Arista was more vague, but from your error message, apparently their implementation doesn't even try to do less than 50 ms. Maybe think about this from another perspective, 10 ms is 100 times a second, 50 ms is 20 times a second, and 150 ms just over 6 times a second. I think 10 ms is probably being a little impatient. Not the mention, the added CPU load on both ends dealing with said BFD packets 100x/sec. We’ve generally seen 50-250ms used in practice. 10ms does seem super aggressive. We use 250ms x 3 here for backbone links and peers/transit that support BFD, and 750ms x 3 facing internal gear. — Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.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

April 27, 2021

Re: Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek

by Dean Bahls

Jay is correct. AS32609 has no ports other than for uplinks. Thanks, Dean -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:42 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek I believe their ASN is disconnected from MICE. We still have IP assignments in the system but no ports other than for the remote uplinks. On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:40 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > > On 4/26/21 2:06 PM, Dean Bahls wrote: > > Acentek is PO5 on our remote, comprised of Eth 1/6 and 1/7 (if you > > care) > > Okay, but then where is CNS (AS32609, which is currently listed as 1/6 > on the website)? > > -- > Richard -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

April 26, 2021

Re: Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek

by Jay Hanke

I believe their ASN is disconnected from MICE. We still have IP assignments in the system but no ports other than for the remote uplinks. On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:40 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > > On 4/26/21 2:06 PM, Dean Bahls wrote: > > Acentek is PO5 on our remote, comprised of Eth 1/6 and 1/7 (if you care) > > Okay, but then where is CNS (AS32609, which is currently listed as 1/6 > on the website)? > > -- > Richard -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

April 26, 2021

Re: Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek

by Richard Laager

On 4/26/21 2:06 PM, Dean Bahls wrote: > Acentek is PO5 on our remote, comprised of Eth 1/6 and 1/7 (if you care) Okay, but then where is CNS (AS32609, which is currently listed as 1/6 on the website)? -- Richard

April 26, 2021

Re: Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek

by Jesse Reed

Thanks everyone; much appreciated! Jesse -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:39 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek EXTERNAL: This email originated from a sender outside AcenTek. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. No problem. I moved the port into their LAG in the portal. Graphs in the portal should update in 24 hours. On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:06 PM Dean Bahls <dean.bahls(a)cooperative-networks.com> wrote: > > Dang, I thought we sent a note about that not too long ago. Acentek > is PO5 on our remote, comprised of Eth 1/6 and 1/7 (if you care) > > Thanks! > > Dean > > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay > Hanke > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:04 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP > Dashboard / AcenTek > > I don't think we got the notice from the remote switch operator. > > Steve/Dean do you have the new port info for Acentek? > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:00 PM Jesse Reed <jreed(a)acentek.net> wrote: > > > > To whom it may concern: > > > > Earlier this year, AcenTek worked w/someone to turn up a 2nd link inside a 20 Gig port-ch @ the 511 building facing our equipment. Logging into the IXP portal today, we see that our information is still only reflective of 1 single 10 Gig link. Can this information be updated accordingly inside the AcenTek portal? > > > > Thanks ahead of time, > > > > Jesse Reed > > > > -- > Jay Hanke, President > South Front Networks > jayhanke(a)southfront.io > Phone 612-204-0000 -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

April 26, 2021

Re: Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek

by Jay Hanke

No problem. I moved the port into their LAG in the portal. Graphs in the portal should update in 24 hours. On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:06 PM Dean Bahls <dean.bahls(a)cooperative-networks.com> wrote: > > Dang, I thought we sent a note about that not too long ago. Acentek is PO5 on our remote, comprised of Eth 1/6 and 1/7 (if you care) > > Thanks! > > Dean > > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:04 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek > > I don't think we got the notice from the remote switch operator. > > Steve/Dean do you have the new port info for Acentek? > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:00 PM Jesse Reed <jreed(a)acentek.net> wrote: > > > > To whom it may concern: > > > > Earlier this year, AcenTek worked w/someone to turn up a 2nd link inside a 20 Gig port-ch @ the 511 building facing our equipment. Logging into the IXP portal today, we see that our information is still only reflective of 1 single 10 Gig link. Can this information be updated accordingly inside the AcenTek portal? > > > > Thanks ahead of time, > > > > Jesse Reed > > > > -- > Jay Hanke, President > South Front Networks > jayhanke(a)southfront.io > Phone 612-204-0000 -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

April 26, 2021

Re: Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek

by Dean Bahls

Dang, I thought we sent a note about that not too long ago. Acentek is PO5 on our remote, comprised of Eth 1/6 and 1/7 (if you care) Thanks! Dean -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:04 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek I don't think we got the notice from the remote switch operator. Steve/Dean do you have the new port info for Acentek? On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:00 PM Jesse Reed <jreed(a)acentek.net> wrote: > > To whom it may concern: > > Earlier this year, AcenTek worked w/someone to turn up a 2nd link inside a 20 Gig port-ch @ the 511 building facing our equipment. Logging into the IXP portal today, we see that our information is still only reflective of 1 single 10 Gig link. Can this information be updated accordingly inside the AcenTek portal? > > Thanks ahead of time, > > Jesse Reed -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

April 26, 2021

Re: Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek

by Jay Hanke

I don't think we got the notice from the remote switch operator. Steve/Dean do you have the new port info for Acentek? On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:00 PM Jesse Reed <jreed(a)acentek.net> wrote: > > To whom it may concern: > > Earlier this year, AcenTek worked w/someone to turn up a 2nd link inside a 20 Gig port-ch @ the 511 building facing our equipment. Logging into the IXP portal today, we see that our information is still only reflective of 1 single 10 Gig link. Can this information be updated accordingly inside the AcenTek portal? > > Thanks ahead of time, > > Jesse Reed -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

April 26, 2021