- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

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

by Jeremy Lumby

I will donate one -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 3:33 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Do we have a copper SFP for the Route Server connection? On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Jay, > > > > Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports > on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of > the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you > agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, > can you post the maintenance to the Announce list? > > > > Jeremy > > > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan > Goldberg > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:07 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > > > No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g... > > > On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)AITECH.NET> wrote: > > Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this. > > Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general > consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to > MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down > their sessions in advance if they prefer. > > > > I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the > existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity > Telephone) to the 4550? > > > > ~Matthew > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to > the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the > existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper > stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports > lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the > other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to > all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to > the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the > 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back > as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so > that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss > changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I > believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the > existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a > maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to > the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left > shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, > while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables > has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited > availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. > Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would > rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G > users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of > time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one. > > > 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 > > > > ________________________________ > > 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. 29, 2016

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

by Jason Hanke

Do we have a copper SFP for the Route Server connection? On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Jay, > > > > Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports > on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of > the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you > agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, > can you post the maintenance to the Announce list? > > > > Jeremy > > > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan > Goldberg > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:07 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > > > No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g... > > > On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)AITECH.NET> wrote: > > Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this. > > Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general > consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to > MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down > their sessions in advance if they prefer. > > > > I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the > existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity > Telephone) to the 4550? > > > > ~Matthew > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to > the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the > existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper > stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports > lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the > other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to > all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to > the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the > 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back > as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so > that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss > changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I > believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the > existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a > maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to > the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left > shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, > while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables > has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited > availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. > Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would > rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G > users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of > time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one. > > > 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 > > > > ________________________________ > > 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. 29, 2016

1G Fiber Port Moves

by Jason Hanke

The following ports will be moved from the existing EX4200-24T to the EX4550 from ge-1/1/0 to ge-2/0/28 --- 5 Nines 1G SFP from ge-1/1/1 to ge-2/0/29 --- ClaimLynx 1G SFP from ge-1/1/2 to ge-2/0/30 --- CDW Berbee 1G SFP from ge-1/1/3 to ge-2/0/31 --- Velocity Telephone 1G SFP The move is necessary to facilitate breaking the EX4200 out of the Virtual Chassis configuration. -- 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. 29, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Andrew Hoyos

On Sep 29, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > > I've bumped up the route servers to 55k for HE's connection. (Normal > connections are limited to 1k without an override). Can we document that here (perhaps with any other relevant technical detail about route-servers… OS/versions/config/etc)? I was not aware of any max-prefix settings on the route-servers. http://micemn.net/technical.html A peering DB record maybe a good idea here as well, for the route-servers, so folks have a general idea of what to set max-pfx to, etc. IE: https://peeringdb.com/net/6834 -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Sept. 29, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 01:49:30PM -0500, Reid Fishler wrote: > Hurricane will begin to send routes to the route servers within the next > few days. Approximately 40k routes will be sent, so watch your filters! > Happy peering! I've bumped up the route servers to 55k for HE's connection. (Normal connections are limited to 1k without an override). -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Sept. 29, 2016

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

by Doug McIntyre

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:35:00AM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. That is fine for ipHouse. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Sept. 29, 2016

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

by Jeremy Lumby

Eventually I would like to stack it with the new 4200, however I do not want to immediately since there is a possibility that one of its stacking cables, or interfaces have an issue, and therefore I would like to run clean for a while before we add it into the mix. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:27 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants What is the plan with the old 4200? On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Jay, > > > > Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports > on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of > the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you > agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, > can you post the maintenance to the Announce list? > > > > Jeremy > > > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan > Goldberg > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:07 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > > > No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g... > > > On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)AITECH.NET> wrote: > > Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this. > > Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general > consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to > MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down > their sessions in advance if they prefer. > > > > I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the > existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity > Telephone) to the 4550? > > > > ~Matthew > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to > the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the > existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper > stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports > lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the > other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to > all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to > the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the > 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back > as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so > that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss > changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I > believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the > existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a > maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to > the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left > shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, > while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables > has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited > availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. > Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would > rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G > users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of > time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one. > > > 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 > > > > ________________________________ > > 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. 29, 2016

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

by Jason Hanke

What is the plan with the old 4200? On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Jay, > > > > Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports > on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of > the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you > agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, > can you post the maintenance to the Announce list? > > > > Jeremy > > > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan > Goldberg > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:07 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > > > No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g... > > > On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)AITECH.NET> wrote: > > Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this. > > Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general > consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to > MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down > their sessions in advance if they prefer. > > > > I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the > existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity > Telephone) to the 4550? > > > > ~Matthew > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to > the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the > existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper > stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports > lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the > other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to > all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to > the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the > 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back > as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so > that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss > changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I > believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the > existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a > maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to > the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left > shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, > while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables > has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited > availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. > Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would > rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G > users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of > time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one. > > > 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 > > > > ________________________________ > > 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. 29, 2016

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

by Jeremy Lumby

Jay, Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, can you post the maintenance to the Announce list? Jeremy From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:07 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g... On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)AITECH.NET> wrote: Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this. Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down their sessions in advance if they prefer. I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity Telephone) to the 4550? ~Matthew On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one. 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 To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 29, 2016

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

by Thomas Johnson

IIRC, we (ClaimLynx) were previously on the 4550, and moved to the 4200 to free up 10GE ports. We're content to be moved wherever is convenient for the exchange (we briefly discussed moving us to the CNS switch). On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)aitech.net> wrote: > I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the > existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity > Telephone) to the 4550? -- Thomas Johnson ClaimLynx, Inc. 952-593-5969 x2302 -- This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please contact the sender or call ClaimLynx at (952) 593-5969.

Sept. 29, 2016