- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Stormy exchange?

by Andrew Hoyos

If you look at the MICE traffic stats, pretty apparent spike of traffic on all ports at same time in same volume (ie: broadcast traffic/loop) Might also consider graphing PPS on all the ports. On Aug 8, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Doug McIntyre wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 10:02:57AM -0500, Thomas Johnson wrote: >> Our switch port just bounced due to storm control. Is someone breaking >> things on a Friday? > > Hmm, on the MICE Switch side of things, it looks like we lost light > just from you. > > Aug 8 09:44:49 MICE-SW1 chassism[1053]: link 6 SFP receive power low alarm set > Aug 8 09:44:49 MICE-SW1 chassism[1053]: link 6 SFP receive power low warning set > Aug 8 09:49:49 MICE-SW1 chassism[1053]: link 6 SFP receive power low alarm cleared > Aug 8 09:49:49 MICE-SW1 chassism[1053]: link 6 SFP receive power low warning cleared > > My port didn't error out (which is usually pretty sensative to it). > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Aug. 8, 2014

Re: Stormy exchange?

by Thomas Johnson

Cacti seems to show that *something* was going on. We haven't touched our switch today, but perhaps I have the storm threshold set too low. Aug 8 09:44:43 sw-j eswd[1303]: ESWD_ST_CTL_ERROR_IN_EFFECT: ge-1/1/0.0: storm control in effect on the port Aug 8 09:44:43 sw-j eswd[1303]: ESWD_ST_CTL_ERROR_DISABLED: ge-1/1/0.0: storm control disabled port Aug 8 09:44:43 sw-j eswd[1303]: ESWD_ST_CTL_ERROR_IN_EFFECT: ge-1/1/0.0: storm control in effect on the port Aug 8 09:49:43 sw-j eswd[1303]: ESWD_ST_CTL_ERROR_ENABLED: ge-1/1/0.0: storm control enabled port > show configuration ethernet-switching-options storm-control action-shutdown; /* MICE */ interface ge-1/1/0.0 { level 50; } On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 10:02:57AM -0500, Thomas Johnson wrote: >> Our switch port just bounced due to storm control. Is someone breaking >> things on a Friday? > > Hmm, on the MICE Switch side of things, it looks like we lost light > just from you. > > Aug 8 09:44:49 MICE-SW1 chassism[1053]: link 6 SFP receive power low alarm set > Aug 8 09:44:49 MICE-SW1 chassism[1053]: link 6 SFP receive power low warning set > Aug 8 09:49:49 MICE-SW1 chassism[1053]: link 6 SFP receive power low alarm cleared > Aug 8 09:49:49 MICE-SW1 chassism[1053]: link 6 SFP receive power low warning cleared > > My port didn't error out (which is usually pretty sensative to it). > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades -- 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.

Aug. 8, 2014

Re: Stormy exchange?

by Doug McIntyre

On Fri, Aug 08, 2014 at 10:02:57AM -0500, Thomas Johnson wrote: > Our switch port just bounced due to storm control. Is someone breaking > things on a Friday? Hmm, on the MICE Switch side of things, it looks like we lost light just from you. Aug 8 09:44:49 MICE-SW1 chassism[1053]: link 6 SFP receive power low alarm set Aug 8 09:44:49 MICE-SW1 chassism[1053]: link 6 SFP receive power low warning set Aug 8 09:49:49 MICE-SW1 chassism[1053]: link 6 SFP receive power low alarm cleared Aug 8 09:49:49 MICE-SW1 chassism[1053]: link 6 SFP receive power low warning cleared My port didn't error out (which is usually pretty sensative to it). -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Aug. 8, 2014

Stormy exchange?

by Thomas Johnson

Our switch port just bounced due to storm control. Is someone breaking things on a Friday? -- 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.

Aug. 8, 2014

Re: MICE MTU

by Hannigan, Martin

Anthony, that makes perfect sense. Thanks! On Jul 25, 2014, at 10:21 AM, Anthony Anderberg <anthonyanderberg(a)NU-TELECOM.NET> wrote: > To be clear: the exchange doesn't support jumbo frames everywhere at the moment but it is our intention to add support. It isn't that there is demand, we just don't want the exchange to silently drop traffic should two members want to exchange traffic at a larger MTU. > > > Anthony Anderberg > Sr. Systems Analyst > 320-234-5239 > anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net > www.nutelecom.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:40 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE MTU > > > > If everyone really wants to, I'm happy to go along. I just can't imagine its worth the effort. I have to wonder why 99.99% of all other IXPs and peers in the world seem to think its not worth the effort either. > > Best, > > -M< > > > On Jul 25, 2014, at 12:27 AM, Owen DeLong <owend(a)HE.NET> wrote: > >> I think it is desirable for the fabric to be jumbo-frame compatible. >> >> In general, jumbo frame support can be a good thing and we are fully jumbo-frame capable on our backbone. >> >> I don't know of any downside to enabling jumbo frames on the fabric. Obviously enabling them on router interfaces requires the cooperation of all peers. While I'd like to see that happen, I'm guessing it's not as easy as one might hope. >> >> Owen >> >> On Jul 24, 2014, at 21:06 , Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson(a)ARVIG.COM> wrote: >> >>> The discussion at the meeting is unfortunately missed in the briefness of the minutes. >>> >>> The IX is configured to support jumbo frames and we felt we should keep it that way going forward. This allows maximum flexibility to support possible applications of jumbo frames. >>> >>> That being said, nobody is using them or has any concrete plans (that we could identify at the meeting) to use jumbo frames. If a member has a specific application or desire to use jumbo frames, it's up to that member to work with whomever their peer is to work through the technicalities and concerns of that application. >>> >>> s >>> >>> On Thursday, July 24, 2014, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Generally, the general IXP community has determined that the minimum exchange services configuration should be: >>> >>> http://www.open-ix.org/certification/ixp-technical-requirements/ >>> >>> If we all thought it was desired as a minimum configuration at an IXP, it would've made it in there IMHO. It didn't. If someone thinks all IXPs should do this, they should take a run at this and see if they can get the rest of the IXP community to support it (Not just Netnod and NASA). >>> >>> We have the same issue as Andrew, and we have zero interest to go to an MTU of 9000. >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> -M< >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:29 PM, "Koch, Andrew" <andrew.koch(a)TDSTELECOM.COM> wrote: >>> >>>> The UG 13 minutes make note that the exchange MTU is 9000 bytes. Are other members configuring their routers for an MTU of 9000? >>>> >>>> I ask as TDS has not - we have stuck with the Ethernet standard >>>> 1500 bytes. If anyone on the exchange has set an MTU of 9000 and >>>> tries to send jumbo traffic to us, it will not be accepted and no >>>> indication will be sent back to the originator. (10d in the linked >>>> document below) >>>> >>>> If no one (or few) has setup their routers for an MTU of 9000, but we as a community wish to enable this, I would recommend that we schedule a flag day so that we can minimize blackholing of traffic across the exchange. >>>> >>>> While only a draft, see >>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mlevy-ixp-jumboframes-00 for >>>> further information on IXP Jumbo Frame operation and conversion. >>>> For those that like presentations more than IETF drafts, Martin >>>> Levy (of Hurricane Electric at the time) presented this at RIPE 64 >>>> - >>>> https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/139-Hurricane_Electric_-_Mart >>>> in_Levy_-_IX_Jumbo_Frames_-_RIPE64_EIX-WG_-_Slovenia.pdf >>>> >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> Andy Koch >>>> TDS Telecom - IP Network Operations andrew.koch(a)tdstelecom.com >>>> Desk: 608-664-4694 >>>> Cell: 608-616-0072 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ######################################################################## >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >>>> ?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Shaun Carlson >>> Network Engineering Manager | Arvig >>> ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.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 >>

July 26, 2014

Re: MICE MTU

by Anthony Anderberg

To be clear: the exchange doesn't support jumbo frames everywhere at the moment but it is our intention to add support. It isn't that there is demand, we just don't want the exchange to silently drop traffic should two members want to exchange traffic at a larger MTU. Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net www.nutelecom.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:40 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE MTU If everyone really wants to, I'm happy to go along. I just can't imagine its worth the effort. I have to wonder why 99.99% of all other IXPs and peers in the world seem to think its not worth the effort either. Best, -M< On Jul 25, 2014, at 12:27 AM, Owen DeLong <owend(a)HE.NET> wrote: > I think it is desirable for the fabric to be jumbo-frame compatible. > > In general, jumbo frame support can be a good thing and we are fully jumbo-frame capable on our backbone. > > I don't know of any downside to enabling jumbo frames on the fabric. Obviously enabling them on router interfaces requires the cooperation of all peers. While I'd like to see that happen, I'm guessing it's not as easy as one might hope. > > Owen > > On Jul 24, 2014, at 21:06 , Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson(a)ARVIG.COM> wrote: > >> The discussion at the meeting is unfortunately missed in the briefness of the minutes. >> >> The IX is configured to support jumbo frames and we felt we should keep it that way going forward. This allows maximum flexibility to support possible applications of jumbo frames. >> >> That being said, nobody is using them or has any concrete plans (that we could identify at the meeting) to use jumbo frames. If a member has a specific application or desire to use jumbo frames, it's up to that member to work with whomever their peer is to work through the technicalities and concerns of that application. >> >> s >> >> On Thursday, July 24, 2014, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: >> >> >> Generally, the general IXP community has determined that the minimum exchange services configuration should be: >> >> http://www.open-ix.org/certification/ixp-technical-requirements/ >> >> If we all thought it was desired as a minimum configuration at an IXP, it would've made it in there IMHO. It didn't. If someone thinks all IXPs should do this, they should take a run at this and see if they can get the rest of the IXP community to support it (Not just Netnod and NASA). >> >> We have the same issue as Andrew, and we have zero interest to go to an MTU of 9000. >> >> >> Best, >> >> -M< >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:29 PM, "Koch, Andrew" <andrew.koch(a)TDSTELECOM.COM> wrote: >> >> > The UG 13 minutes make note that the exchange MTU is 9000 bytes. Are other members configuring their routers for an MTU of 9000? >> > >> > I ask as TDS has not - we have stuck with the Ethernet standard >> > 1500 bytes. If anyone on the exchange has set an MTU of 9000 and >> > tries to send jumbo traffic to us, it will not be accepted and no >> > indication will be sent back to the originator. (10d in the linked >> > document below) >> > >> > If no one (or few) has setup their routers for an MTU of 9000, but we as a community wish to enable this, I would recommend that we schedule a flag day so that we can minimize blackholing of traffic across the exchange. >> > >> > While only a draft, see >> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mlevy-ixp-jumboframes-00 for >> > further information on IXP Jumbo Frame operation and conversion. >> > For those that like presentations more than IETF drafts, Martin >> > Levy (of Hurricane Electric at the time) presented this at RIPE 64 >> > - >> > https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/139-Hurricane_Electric_-_Mart >> > in_Levy_-_IX_Jumbo_Frames_-_RIPE64_EIX-WG_-_Slovenia.pdf >> > >> > >> > Best Regards, >> > >> > Andy Koch >> > TDS Telecom - IP Network Operations andrew.koch(a)tdstelecom.com >> > Desk: 608-664-4694 >> > Cell: 608-616-0072 >> > >> > >> > >> > ######################################################################## >> > >> > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >> > ?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Shaun Carlson >> Network Engineering Manager | Arvig >> ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.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 >

July 25, 2014

Re: UG 13 Minutes

by Koch, Andrew

Thanks Doug! Your support of MICE by providing the mailing list is appreciated. Andy > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of > Doug McIntyre > Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2014 22:40 > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] UG 13 Minutes > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 05:57:46PM -0500, Doug McIntyre wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 05:34:15PM -0500, Shaun Carlson wrote: > > > Both of the public MICE lists appear to have broken archives at > lists.iphouse.net since May. Is there someone that can take a peek at > this? > > > > Sure, I'll look into the issue. > > (Nothing amiss on the system AFAIK, it'll take a deeper view to find). > > This is fixed up now. > Sorry some variables got reset on the last software updates. :-( > (but the list has a method for DMARC delivery type issues if needed). > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

July 25, 2014

Re: MICE MTU

by Hannigan, Martin

If everyone really wants to, I'm happy to go along. I just can't imagine its worth the effort. I have to wonder why 99.99% of all other IXPs and peers in the world seem to think its not worth the effort either. Best, -M< On Jul 25, 2014, at 12:27 AM, Owen DeLong <owend(a)HE.NET> wrote: > I think it is desirable for the fabric to be jumbo-frame compatible. > > In general, jumbo frame support can be a good thing and we are fully jumbo-frame capable on our backbone. > > I don't know of any downside to enabling jumbo frames on the fabric. Obviously enabling them on router interfaces requires the cooperation of all peers. While I'd like to see that happen, I'm guessing it's not as easy as one might hope. > > Owen > > On Jul 24, 2014, at 21:06 , Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson(a)ARVIG.COM> wrote: > >> The discussion at the meeting is unfortunately missed in the briefness of the minutes. >> >> The IX is configured to support jumbo frames and we felt we should keep it that way going forward. This allows maximum flexibility to support possible applications of jumbo frames. >> >> That being said, nobody is using them or has any concrete plans (that we could identify at the meeting) to use jumbo frames. If a member has a specific application or desire to use jumbo frames, it's up to that member to work with whomever their peer is to work through the technicalities and concerns of that application. >> >> s >> >> On Thursday, July 24, 2014, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: >> >> >> Generally, the general IXP community has determined that the minimum exchange services configuration should be: >> >> http://www.open-ix.org/certification/ixp-technical-requirements/ >> >> If we all thought it was desired as a minimum configuration at an IXP, it would've made it in there IMHO. It didn't. If someone thinks all IXPs should do this, they should take a run at this and see if they can get the rest of the IXP community to support it (Not just Netnod and NASA). >> >> We have the same issue as Andrew, and we have zero interest to go to an MTU of 9000. >> >> >> Best, >> >> -M< >> >> >> >> >> On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:29 PM, "Koch, Andrew" <andrew.koch(a)TDSTELECOM.COM> wrote: >> >> > The UG 13 minutes make note that the exchange MTU is 9000 bytes. Are other members configuring their routers for an MTU of 9000? >> > >> > I ask as TDS has not - we have stuck with the Ethernet standard 1500 bytes. If anyone on the exchange has set an MTU of 9000 and tries to send jumbo traffic to us, it will not be accepted and no indication will be sent back to the originator. (10d in the linked document below) >> > >> > If no one (or few) has setup their routers for an MTU of 9000, but we as a community wish to enable this, I would recommend that we schedule a flag day so that we can minimize blackholing of traffic across the exchange. >> > >> > While only a draft, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mlevy-ixp-jumboframes-00 for further information on IXP Jumbo Frame operation and conversion. For those that like presentations more than IETF drafts, Martin Levy (of Hurricane Electric at the time) presented this at RIPE 64 - https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/139-Hurricane_Electric_-_Martin_Levy_… >> > >> > >> > Best Regards, >> > >> > Andy Koch >> > TDS Telecom - IP Network Operations >> > andrew.koch(a)tdstelecom.com >> > Desk: 608-664-4694 >> > Cell: 608-616-0072 >> > >> > >> > >> > ######################################################################## >> > >> > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >> > ?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Shaun Carlson >> Network Engineering Manager | Arvig >> ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.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 >

July 25, 2014

Re: MICE MTU

by Owen DeLong

I think it is desirable for the fabric to be jumbo-frame compatible. In general, jumbo frame support can be a good thing and we are fully jumbo-frame capable on our backbone. I don't know of any downside to enabling jumbo frames on the fabric. Obviously enabling them on router interfaces requires the cooperation of all peers. While I'd like to see that happen, I'm guessing it's not as easy as one might hope. Owen On Jul 24, 2014, at 21:06 , Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson(a)ARVIG.COM> wrote: > The discussion at the meeting is unfortunately missed in the briefness of the minutes. > > The IX is configured to support jumbo frames and we felt we should keep it that way going forward. This allows maximum flexibility to support possible applications of jumbo frames. > > That being said, nobody is using them or has any concrete plans (that we could identify at the meeting) to use jumbo frames. If a member has a specific application or desire to use jumbo frames, it's up to that member to work with whomever their peer is to work through the technicalities and concerns of that application. > > s > > On Thursday, July 24, 2014, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: > > > Generally, the general IXP community has determined that the minimum exchange services configuration should be: > > http://www.open-ix.org/certification/ixp-technical-requirements/ > > If we all thought it was desired as a minimum configuration at an IXP, it would've made it in there IMHO. It didn't. If someone thinks all IXPs should do this, they should take a run at this and see if they can get the rest of the IXP community to support it (Not just Netnod and NASA). > > We have the same issue as Andrew, and we have zero interest to go to an MTU of 9000. > > > Best, > > -M< > > > > > On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:29 PM, "Koch, Andrew" <andrew.koch(a)TDSTELECOM.COM> wrote: > > > The UG 13 minutes make note that the exchange MTU is 9000 bytes. Are other members configuring their routers for an MTU of 9000? > > > > I ask as TDS has not - we have stuck with the Ethernet standard 1500 bytes. If anyone on the exchange has set an MTU of 9000 and tries to send jumbo traffic to us, it will not be accepted and no indication will be sent back to the originator. (10d in the linked document below) > > > > If no one (or few) has setup their routers for an MTU of 9000, but we as a community wish to enable this, I would recommend that we schedule a flag day so that we can minimize blackholing of traffic across the exchange. > > > > While only a draft, see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mlevy-ixp-jumboframes-00 for further information on IXP Jumbo Frame operation and conversion. For those that like presentations more than IETF drafts, Martin Levy (of Hurricane Electric at the time) presented this at RIPE 64 - https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/139-Hurricane_Electric_-_Martin_Levy_… > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Andy Koch > > TDS Telecom - IP Network Operations > > andrew.koch(a)tdstelecom.com > > Desk: 608-664-4694 > > Cell: 608-616-0072 > > > > > > > > ######################################################################## > > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > > ?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > > > -- > > Shaun Carlson > Network Engineering Manager | Arvig > ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

July 25, 2014

Re: MICE MTU

by Shaun Carlson

The discussion at the meeting is unfortunately missed in the briefness of the minutes. The IX is configured to support jumbo frames and we felt we should keep it that way going forward. This allows maximum flexibility to support possible applications of jumbo frames. That being said, nobody is using them or has any concrete plans (that we could identify at the meeting) to use jumbo frames. If a member has a specific application or desire to use jumbo frames, it's up to that member to work with whomever their peer is to work through the technicalities and concerns of that application. s On Thursday, July 24, 2014, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: > > > Generally, the general IXP community has determined that the minimum > exchange services configuration should be: > > http://www.open-ix.org/certification/ixp-technical-requirements/ > > If we all thought it was desired as a minimum configuration at an IXP, it > would've made it in there IMHO. It didn't. If someone thinks all IXPs > should do this, they should take a run at this and see if they can get the > rest of the IXP community to support it (Not just Netnod and NASA). > > We have the same issue as Andrew, and we have zero interest to go to an > MTU of 9000. > > > Best, > > -M< > > > > > On Jul 24, 2014, at 6:29 PM, "Koch, Andrew" <andrew.koch(a)TDSTELECOM.COM > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > The UG 13 minutes make note that the exchange MTU is 9000 bytes. Are > other members configuring their routers for an MTU of 9000? > > > > I ask as TDS has not - we have stuck with the Ethernet standard 1500 > bytes. If anyone on the exchange has set an MTU of 9000 and tries to send > jumbo traffic to us, it will not be accepted and no indication will be sent > back to the originator. (10d in the linked document below) > > > > If no one (or few) has setup their routers for an MTU of 9000, but we as > a community wish to enable this, I would recommend that we schedule a flag > day so that we can minimize blackholing of traffic across the exchange. > > > > While only a draft, see > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mlevy-ixp-jumboframes-00 for further > information on IXP Jumbo Frame operation and conversion. For those that > like presentations more than IETF drafts, Martin Levy (of Hurricane > Electric at the time) presented this at RIPE 64 - > https://ripe64.ripe.net/presentations/139-Hurricane_Electric_-_Martin_Levy_… > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Andy Koch > > TDS Telecom - IP Network Operations > > andrew.koch(a)tdstelecom.com <javascript:;> > > Desk: 608-664-4694 > > Cell: 608-616-0072 > > > > > > > > ######################################################################## > > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > > ?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > -- *Shaun Carlson*Network Engineering Manager | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

July 25, 2014