- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by DeLong, Owen

I know it’s more work, but I’d like to suggest testing on 1, then testing on 2. If the results are the same, stick with 2. If necessary for troubleshooting, shut down the second one temporarily and/or migrate back to non-split. I’d hate to see the 1G members dropped from the exchange due to failure of a single line card or switch when that can be avoided. Owen On Sep 21, 2016, at 14:20 , Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: I am open to input on that. If we run into further errors, it would probably be easier to troubleshoot if it was not split across both, however for load balancing/redundancy it makes sense to split. I do not think there is a ton of load from the 1G members, so I am leaning towards putting them both on 1 From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:16 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Do you want the LAG split between the 4500 and 4550? Jay On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: I will probably be there tomorrow to assist in the physical portion of the installation with Doug/Anthony. I volunteer to be the guinea pig, and test for loss prior to scheduling a maintenance window to cut over the other 1G members on. Jay, could you give us port assignments for the L2 link to the 4500s, and an IP for the new switch. Thanks, Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Ok, it's there. Firmwared (holy crap I forget the hell that is the time commitment to firmware ex4200) to as listed below and with c13/c14 cables and stacking cables. me0.0 is dhcp root is mice987z admin is mice987z ssh is on -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Pulled jinstall-ex-4200-12.3R12.4-domestic-signed just now. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:05 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants JTAC recommended is R12. Looking at the release notes, seems like a bunch of minor stuff, but a few PFE crash related fixes that apply to EX4200. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com> > On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: > > Probably makes sense to match the current version on the other > switches of 12.3R9-S1 > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf > Of Ryan Goldberg > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 11:58 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > Ok, so I’ll leave the 4200-24 with the 2x 10gig and a stacking cable. > > Anyone have a firmware preference? Or just current juniper recommend? > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf > Of Ryan Goldberg > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:38 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > I’m only partially tracking the thread but wasn’t there going to be a normal 2 x 10gig LAG into the “new” switch? > > Either way, I have available today: > > 1 x 4200-48 poe with the 2 x sfp+ module and 2 x PS > 2 x 4200-24 with the 2 x sfp+ module and 2 x PS > 1 x 3300 > 1 x HP 28284 J > 3 x 4200/4500 stacking cables > > I can default and leave one of these in the mice cabinet. No extra optics or DACs today… I can leave a stacking cable though. > > I’d like to do the defaulting/(and firmwaring) this AM around 10:30 and would deliver to mice cabinet around 2pm. > > So, whoever wants to make the final “I’LL TAKE THAT ONE” call lemme know and I’ll deliver. > > You can also drop me a line at 218-390-5485. > > Ryan > > > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf > Of Levi Pederson > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:28 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > All, > > 3300's Can't join a Mixed 45**. We'd have to monitor it separately. Troubleshooting, monitoring and management would be easier with another 4200/4500/4550. > > Thank you, > > > Levi Pederson > Mankato Networks LLC > cell | 612.481.0769 > work | 612.787.7392 > levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net<mailto:levipederson@mankatonetworks.net> > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com<mailto:ben.wiechman@arvig.com>> wrote: > We may have a couple EX3300 as well. I can check tomorrow if there is any interest. > > > On Sep 20, 2016 4:50 PM, "Ryan Goldberg" <RGoldberg(a)compudyne.com<mailto:RGoldberg@compudyne.com>> wrote: > provided my work tonight goes as planned I can leave a: > > FPC 2 REV 18 750-021255 BQ0209437984 EX4200-48P, 48 POE > CPU BUILTIN BUILTIN FPC CPU > PIC 0 BUILTIN BUILTIN 48x 10/100/1000 Base-T > PIC 1 REV 04 711-026017 CH0209419573 2x 10GE SFP+ > > > in the mice cabinet (or elsewhere). > > note: no optics... but I could leave a couple DACs probably > > I could leave 24 port non-POE 4200 if preferred. Why do I have 48 port poe switch at 511? So many questions.... > > Or........ I may have a 3300-24 available, which gives 4x SFP+ instead. > > Any preferences whilst I rummage through my oddball grab bag? > > > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> on behalf of > Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM<mailto:jlumby@MNVOIP.COM>> > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > I am in favor, THANKS GUYS!!! > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf > Of Jason Hanke > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > Compudyne has offered to donate an EX4200 with a 2x10G uplink card to MICE to help the cause. > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: > I am in favor of a regular layer 2 uplink. I think the main reason I feel this way is it is industry standard, and then the switch has its own forwarding table. We have seen issues in the past where if the link on a high volume port goes down, the MAC gets removed from the forwarding table, and then all of that traffic gets flooded to all other ports until BGP times out. This seems to be especially problematic when it hits the 1G ports. > > My vision of a future upgrade would be something along the lines of a 5200, or equiv from another manufacturer that has all of the other switches uplinked to it. Then we would have separate forwarding tables, a place to connect remote switches, as well as something that has some 40G, and 100G capabilities. All of the uplinks would then be easy to monitor/graph without excessive load on the switch. Copper SFP+/QSFP+ cables can be used between switches and they are affordable/easy to come by. > > Jeremy > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf > Of Doug McIntyre > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:15 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can > > leave the 4200 without going across a vcp > > Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that > are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G > card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run > virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other switches. > > Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off > the 4200 altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. > Then we wouldn't have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either. > > > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have "vcp-1" in them? > > As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive, > there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now, and > I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200. > > We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously. > That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it > is an issue with the device itself. > > Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it). > > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net<mailto:merlyn@iphouse.net>> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > > > > -- > Jay Hanke > CTO > Neutral Path Communications > 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 > Mankato, MN 56001 > (507) 327-2398<tel:%28507%29%20327-2398> mobile > jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net<mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net> > www.neutralpath.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neutralpath.net&d=D…> > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> > > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> > -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net<mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net> www.neutralpath.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neutralpath.net&d=D…> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…>

Sept. 23, 2016

PTR's

by Frank Bulk

What is MICE's default approach for PTR naming? Is it nothing-unless-asked, AS####.micemn.net or something else? Frank

Sept. 23, 2016

Participant List Updates

by Richard Laager

I've updated the website to reflect some participants becoming active: Great Plains Communications Stealth Broadband Yahoo! The following are still pending: ipHouse Remote Switch PCH Sandwich.net Velocity Telephone One port move is still pending: Wikstrom Telephone Company (still active on their current port) I have not historically checked for disconnections. I gave the Cacti graphs a quick read-through, and did some ping & route checks. I wouldn't consider it exhaustive, but I don't see any disconnections. -- Richard

Sept. 23, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Jason Hanke

Sorry, I mistyped should be 0/2/2 On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Jay, > > I am doing the physical install of the switch now, and I see 0/2/3 is in use. The cross connect/participants list shows Hoyos I see 0/0/1 is available, as well as 0/1/3, and 0/2/2 > > Jeremy. > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:25 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants > > Here is the IP: > > MICE Core 1G EX4200-24T > 206.108.255.244/24 > 2001:504:27:0:0:D1AF::244/64 > > I believe this is LAG10 on the core side: > xe-0/2/3 > xe-2/0/16 > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Ryan Goldberg <RGoldberg(a)compudyne.com> wrote: >> Just note: no DACs or optics, so no way to connect at 10gig unless someone brings some snacks >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby >> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:14 PM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants >> >> I will probably be there tomorrow to assist in the physical portion of the installation with Doug/Anthony. I volunteer to be the guinea pig, and test for loss prior to scheduling a maintenance window to cut over the other 1G members on. >> >> Jay, could you give us port assignments for the L2 link to the 4500s, and an IP for the new switch. >> >> Thanks, >> Jeremy >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg >> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:07 PM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants >> >> Ok, it's there. Firmwared (holy crap I forget the hell that is the time commitment to firmware ex4200) to as listed below and with c13/c14 cables and stacking cables. >> >> me0.0 is dhcp >> >> root is mice987z >> >> admin is mice987z >> >> ssh is on >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg >> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants >> >> Pulled jinstall-ex-4200-12.3R12.4-domestic-signed just now. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos >> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:05 PM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants >> >> JTAC recommended is R12. Looking at the release notes, seems like a bunch of minor stuff, but a few PFE crash related fixes that apply to EX4200. >> >> -- >> Andrew Hoyos >> hoyosa(a)gmail.com >> >> >> >>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: >>> >>> Probably makes sense to match the current version on the other >>> switches of 12.3R9-S1 >>> >>> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf >>> Of Ryan Goldberg >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 11:58 AM >>> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G >>> Participants >>> >>> Ok, so I’ll leave the 4200-24 with the 2x 10gig and a stacking cable. >>> >>> Anyone have a firmware preference? Or just current juniper recommend? >>> >>> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf >>> Of Ryan Goldberg >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:38 AM >>> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G >>> Participants >>> >>> I’m only partially tracking the thread but wasn’t there going to be a normal 2 x 10gig LAG into the “new” switch? >>> >>> Either way, I have available today: >>> >>> 1 x 4200-48 poe with the 2 x sfp+ module and 2 x PS >>> 2 x 4200-24 with the 2 x sfp+ module and 2 x PS >>> 1 x 3300 >>> 1 x HP 28284 J >>> 3 x 4200/4500 stacking cables >>> >>> I can default and leave one of these in the mice cabinet. No extra optics or DACs today… I can leave a stacking cable though. >>> >>> I’d like to do the defaulting/(and firmwaring) this AM around 10:30 and would deliver to mice cabinet around 2pm. >>> >>> So, whoever wants to make the final “I’LL TAKE THAT ONE” call lemme know and I’ll deliver. >>> >>> You can also drop me a line at 218-390-5485. >>> >>> Ryan >>> >>> >>> >>> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf >>> Of Levi Pederson >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:28 AM >>> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G >>> Participants >>> >>> All, >>> >>> 3300's Can't join a Mixed 45**. We'd have to monitor it separately. Troubleshooting, monitoring and management would be easier with another 4200/4500/4550. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> >>> >>> Levi Pederson >>> Mankato Networks LLC >>> cell | 612.481.0769 >>> work | 612.787.7392 >>> levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com> wrote: >>> We may have a couple EX3300 as well. I can check tomorrow if there is any interest. >>> >>> >>> On Sep 20, 2016 4:50 PM, "Ryan Goldberg" <RGoldberg(a)compudyne.com> wrote: >>> provided my work tonight goes as planned I can leave a: >>> >>> FPC 2 REV 18 750-021255 BQ0209437984 EX4200-48P, 48 POE >>> CPU BUILTIN BUILTIN FPC CPU >>> PIC 0 BUILTIN BUILTIN 48x 10/100/1000 Base-T >>> PIC 1 REV 04 711-026017 CH0209419573 2x 10GE SFP+ >>> >>> >>> in the mice cabinet (or elsewhere). >>> >>> note: no optics... but I could leave a couple DACs probably >>> >>> I could leave 24 port non-POE 4200 if preferred. Why do I have 48 port poe switch at 511? So many questions.... >>> >>> Or........ I may have a 3300-24 available, which gives 4x SFP+ instead. >>> >>> Any preferences whilst I rummage through my oddball grab bag? >>> >>> >>> From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of >>> Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM >>> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G >>> Participants >>> >>> I am in favor, THANKS GUYS!!! >>> >>> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf >>> Of Jason Hanke >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM >>> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G >>> Participants >>> >>> Compudyne has offered to donate an EX4200 with a 2x10G uplink card to MICE to help the cause. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: >>> I am in favor of a regular layer 2 uplink. I think the main reason I feel this way is it is industry standard, and then the switch has its own forwarding table. We have seen issues in the past where if the link on a high volume port goes down, the MAC gets removed from the forwarding table, and then all of that traffic gets flooded to all other ports until BGP times out. This seems to be especially problematic when it hits the 1G ports. >>> >>> My vision of a future upgrade would be something along the lines of a 5200, or equiv from another manufacturer that has all of the other switches uplinked to it. Then we would have separate forwarding tables, a place to connect remote switches, as well as something that has some 40G, and 100G capabilities. All of the uplinks would then be easy to monitor/graph without excessive load on the switch. Copper SFP+/QSFP+ cables can be used between switches and they are affordable/easy to come by. >>> >>> Jeremy >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf >>> Of Doug McIntyre >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:15 PM >>> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G >>> Participants >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: >>> > That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can >>> > leave the 4200 without going across a vcp >>> >>> Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that >>> are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G >>> card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run >>> virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other switches. >>> >>> Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off >>> the 4200 altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. >>> Then we wouldn't have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either. >>> >>> > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have "vcp-1" in them? >>> >>> As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive, >>> there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now, and >>> I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200. >>> >>> We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously. >>> That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it >>> is an issue with the device itself. >>> >>> Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it). >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> >>> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ >>> Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jay Hanke >>> CTO >>> Neutral Path Communications >>> 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 >>> Mankato, MN 56001 >>> (507) 327-2398 mobile >>> jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net >>> www.neutralpath.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 >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >> > > > > -- > Jay Hanke > CTO > Neutral Path Communications > 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 > Mankato, MN 56001 > (507) 327-2398 mobile > jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net > www.neutralpath.net -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Sept. 22, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Jeremy Lumby

Jay, I am doing the physical install of the switch now, and I see 0/2/3 is in use. The cross connect/participants list shows Hoyos I see 0/0/1 is available, as well as 0/1/3, and 0/2/2 Jeremy. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:25 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Here is the IP: MICE Core 1G EX4200-24T 206.108.255.244/24 2001:504:27:0:0:D1AF::244/64 I believe this is LAG10 on the core side: xe-0/2/3 xe-2/0/16 On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Ryan Goldberg <RGoldberg(a)compudyne.com> wrote: > Just note: no DACs or optics, so no way to connect at 10gig unless someone brings some snacks > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:14 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants > > I will probably be there tomorrow to assist in the physical portion of the installation with Doug/Anthony. I volunteer to be the guinea pig, and test for loss prior to scheduling a maintenance window to cut over the other 1G members on. > > Jay, could you give us port assignments for the L2 link to the 4500s, and an IP for the new switch. > > Thanks, > Jeremy > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:07 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants > > Ok, it's there. Firmwared (holy crap I forget the hell that is the time commitment to firmware ex4200) to as listed below and with c13/c14 cables and stacking cables. > > me0.0 is dhcp > > root is mice987z > > admin is mice987z > > ssh is on > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants > > Pulled jinstall-ex-4200-12.3R12.4-domestic-signed just now. > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:05 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants > > JTAC recommended is R12. Looking at the release notes, seems like a bunch of minor stuff, but a few PFE crash related fixes that apply to EX4200. > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com > > > >> On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: >> >> Probably makes sense to match the current version on the other >> switches of 12.3R9-S1 >> >> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf >> Of Ryan Goldberg >> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 11:58 AM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G >> Participants >> >> Ok, so I’ll leave the 4200-24 with the 2x 10gig and a stacking cable. >> >> Anyone have a firmware preference? Or just current juniper recommend? >> >> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf >> Of Ryan Goldberg >> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:38 AM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G >> Participants >> >> I’m only partially tracking the thread but wasn’t there going to be a normal 2 x 10gig LAG into the “new” switch? >> >> Either way, I have available today: >> >> 1 x 4200-48 poe with the 2 x sfp+ module and 2 x PS >> 2 x 4200-24 with the 2 x sfp+ module and 2 x PS >> 1 x 3300 >> 1 x HP 28284 J >> 3 x 4200/4500 stacking cables >> >> I can default and leave one of these in the mice cabinet. No extra optics or DACs today… I can leave a stacking cable though. >> >> I’d like to do the defaulting/(and firmwaring) this AM around 10:30 and would deliver to mice cabinet around 2pm. >> >> So, whoever wants to make the final “I’LL TAKE THAT ONE” call lemme know and I’ll deliver. >> >> You can also drop me a line at 218-390-5485. >> >> Ryan >> >> >> >> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf >> Of Levi Pederson >> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:28 AM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G >> Participants >> >> All, >> >> 3300's Can't join a Mixed 45**. We'd have to monitor it separately. Troubleshooting, monitoring and management would be easier with another 4200/4500/4550. >> >> Thank you, >> >> >> Levi Pederson >> Mankato Networks LLC >> cell | 612.481.0769 >> work | 612.787.7392 >> levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com> wrote: >> We may have a couple EX3300 as well. I can check tomorrow if there is any interest. >> >> >> On Sep 20, 2016 4:50 PM, "Ryan Goldberg" <RGoldberg(a)compudyne.com> wrote: >> provided my work tonight goes as planned I can leave a: >> >> FPC 2 REV 18 750-021255 BQ0209437984 EX4200-48P, 48 POE >> CPU BUILTIN BUILTIN FPC CPU >> PIC 0 BUILTIN BUILTIN 48x 10/100/1000 Base-T >> PIC 1 REV 04 711-026017 CH0209419573 2x 10GE SFP+ >> >> >> in the mice cabinet (or elsewhere). >> >> note: no optics... but I could leave a couple DACs probably >> >> I could leave 24 port non-POE 4200 if preferred. Why do I have 48 port poe switch at 511? So many questions.... >> >> Or........ I may have a 3300-24 available, which gives 4x SFP+ instead. >> >> Any preferences whilst I rummage through my oddball grab bag? >> >> >> From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of >> Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G >> Participants >> >> I am in favor, THANKS GUYS!!! >> >> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf >> Of Jason Hanke >> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G >> Participants >> >> Compudyne has offered to donate an EX4200 with a 2x10G uplink card to MICE to help the cause. >> >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: >> I am in favor of a regular layer 2 uplink. I think the main reason I feel this way is it is industry standard, and then the switch has its own forwarding table. We have seen issues in the past where if the link on a high volume port goes down, the MAC gets removed from the forwarding table, and then all of that traffic gets flooded to all other ports until BGP times out. This seems to be especially problematic when it hits the 1G ports. >> >> My vision of a future upgrade would be something along the lines of a 5200, or equiv from another manufacturer that has all of the other switches uplinked to it. Then we would have separate forwarding tables, a place to connect remote switches, as well as something that has some 40G, and 100G capabilities. All of the uplinks would then be easy to monitor/graph without excessive load on the switch. Copper SFP+/QSFP+ cables can be used between switches and they are affordable/easy to come by. >> >> Jeremy >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf >> Of Doug McIntyre >> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:15 PM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G >> Participants >> >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: >> > That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can >> > leave the 4200 without going across a vcp >> >> Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that >> are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G >> card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run >> virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other switches. >> >> Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off >> the 4200 altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. >> Then we wouldn't have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either. >> >> > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have "vcp-1" in them? >> >> As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive, >> there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now, and >> I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200. >> >> We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously. >> That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it >> is an issue with the device itself. >> >> Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it). >> >> >> -- >> Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> >> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ >> Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades >> >> >> >> -- >> Jay Hanke >> CTO >> Neutral Path Communications >> 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 >> Mankato, MN 56001 >> (507) 327-2398 mobile >> jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net >> www.neutralpath.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 >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> 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 >> > -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Sept. 22, 2016

Re: proxy voting

by Jason Hanke

Proxy voting is no problem. You'll need to designate a proxy in writing in advance with a board member so we know it's legit. An email is sufficient with the ASN and name of the proxy. BTW We're using the Marble Head method of voting again. Jay On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > What was the consensus on proxy voting? I seem to recall this was ok. Any special process? > > I was hoping to make the Tuesday meeting in person, but sadly won’t be able to do now. > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Sept. 22, 2016

Re: proxy voting

by Richard Laager

On 09/22/2016 10:13 AM, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > What was the consensus on proxy voting? I seem to recall this was ok. Any special process? This was my take, based on reading the bylaws on the website: On 09/09/2016 01:45 AM, Richard Laager wrote: > If you cannot attend the meeting, I encourage you to designate a proxy, > which must be done in advance. According to the bylaws, you can do this > by email to the Chief Manager. I believe that is Shaun, but if you want > to be safe and nobody confirms who holds that role, send your proxy to > Shaun, Jay, and Reid. Obviously, you should inform the proxy, too. > > If you wish to vote for me, but cannot attend the meeting, you can > designate Mike Johnston as your proxy. I assume Owen will also provide > proxy instructions. -- Richard

Sept. 22, 2016

proxy voting

by Andrew Hoyos

What was the consensus on proxy voting? I seem to recall this was ok. Any special process? I was hoping to make the Tuesday meeting in person, but sadly won’t be able to do now. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Sept. 22, 2016

Re: Update on Website

by Levi Pederson

All, I do believe the cacti was updated at the time of the switch, now several months prior. Just didn't get the website change request in. But we should see what the cacti grapher responds with. Thank you, *Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > On 09/22/2016 10:05 AM, Levi Pederson wrote: > > Monticello FiberNet is now on our remote switch port xe-0/1/2 > > I've updated the website. I suppose Cacti needs an update too, from the > person who handles that. > > -- > Richard >

Sept. 22, 2016

Re: Update on Website

by Levi Pederson

All, Thank you *Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > On 09/22/2016 10:05 AM, Levi Pederson wrote: > > Monticello FiberNet is now on our remote switch port xe-0/1/2 > > I've updated the website. I suppose Cacti needs an update too, from the > person who handles that. > > -- > Richard >

Sept. 22, 2016