- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Switch Swap Tomorrow

by Anthony Anderberg

As a reminder, we'll be swapping out the MICE core switch tomorrow starting at about 9:30am. We'll send out a note when finished, if anyone has questions you can reach my cell phone at 320-234-5539 Thanks, anthony Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst [NUtel_email_logo_1] 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net<mailto:anthonyanderberg@nu-telecom.net> www.nutelecom.net ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 29, 2012

Re: Juniper Switch upgrade

by James Stahr

On 8/23/2012 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Aug 23, 2012, at 11:33 , James Stahr<stahr(a)mailbag.com> wrote: > > >> We can remotely verify that everyone has configured a secondary IP, but that's just the start. You've also got to duplicate ALL of your peer BGP sessions beforehand as well. Why? Well, >> I don't believe Cisco can initiate a BGP session on a secondary address so once a $C router switches their primary and secondary, they cannot initiate a BGP session. Not a problem yet. What about when the next one does it? Suddenly neither of the Cisco devices can peer with each other.. I've not been through an exchange re-address, but given this limitation, I foresee many problems and the idea of a "flag day" much more appealing - luckily though, most participants are using the route server. >> > It can, actually... You just need to add update-source<IP_ADDR> to the configuration. > > A straight IP isn't an option here on either SRE or an ASR running IOS-XE 3.4.2, only a list of 50+ different types of interfaces. Are you using IOS-XR? -James ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 24, 2012

Re: Juniper Switch upgrade

by Owen DeLong

On Aug 23, 2012, at 11:33 , James Stahr <stahr(a)mailbag.com> wrote: > On 8/22/2012 4:51 PM, Doug McIntyre wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:47:21PM -0500, Justin Krejci wrote: >> >>> While I agree with the general sentiment that the IP change and switch >>> change will likely be smooth, the IP change can be done more >>> transparently and has literally nothing to do with the L2 gear. >>> To that end, I don't see any reason to not configure/assign the new IP >>> block now and let folks start using it right away, even before the >>> switch switch. >>> >> But, we don't have a central router? >> >> If your border to the exchange right now got a prefix with the next >> hop of 206.108.255.3, how'd you get there? You'd have no route to host >> for 206.108.255.3. >> >> That is why I brought up the secondary IPs. Once everybody puts in a >> secondary IP in 206.108.255.0/24, they'll know how to try to get to >> 206.108.255.3 for my prefix announcement. But I can't really do the >> prefix announcement with the next-hop in 206.108.255.3 until everybody >> knows how to get to 206.108.255.0/24? >> >> > We can remotely verify that everyone has configured a secondary IP, but that's just the start. You've also got to duplicate ALL of your peer BGP sessions beforehand as well. Why? Well, > I don't believe Cisco can initiate a BGP session on a secondary address so once a $C router switches their primary and secondary, they cannot initiate a BGP session. Not a problem yet. What about when the next one does it? Suddenly neither of the Cisco devices can peer with each other.. I've not been through an exchange re-address, but given this limitation, I foresee many problems and the idea of a "flag day" much more appealing - luckily though, most participants are using the route server. It can, actually... You just need to add update-source <IP_ADDR> to the configuration. > > Hmm... I assume the BIRD configuration allows you to specify source IP's to be used for each peer? > I don't know of any router configurations that don't. Owen ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 23, 2012

Re: MNNS or Digital Plains outage?

by Frank Bulk

ns[12].digitalplains.net is back up again. The A record I had for digitalplains.net _was_ old, so I was chasing a rabbit there. Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:53 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MNNS or Digital Plains outage? I found an old A record for digitalplains.net from DNShistory.org -- looks like a routing loop on Knology's network: nagios:/home/fbulk# tcptraceroute 216.16.38.67 Selected device eth0.3, address 96.31.0.5, port 37082 for outgoing packets Tracing the path to 216.16.38.67 on TCP port 80 (www), 30 hops max 1 router-core-inside.mtcnet.net (96.31.0.254) 0.260 ms 0.179 ms 0.294 ms 2 sxct.movl.mtcnet.net (167.142.156.194) 0.201 ms 0.126 ms 0.133 ms 3 premier.movl-mlx.fbnt.netins.net (173.215.60.1) 2.005 ms 1.956 ms 1.936 ms 4 ins-kb1-te-13-2-220.kmrr.netins.net (167.142.64.253) 6.404 ms 6.402 ms 6.422 ms 5 ins-kc2-et-8-3.kmrr.netins.net (167.142.67.37) 8.122 ms 8.060 ms 8.047 ms 6 ins-dc1-et-8-1.desm.netins.net (167.142.67.29) 8.120 ms 8.091 ms 8.124 ms 7 te-3-3.car2.KansasCity1.Level3.net (4.53.34.113) 14.952 ms 41.355 ms 14.533 ms 8 ae-4-4.ebr2.Denver1.Level3.net (4.69.135.238) 35.185 ms 30.963 ms 26.955 ms 9 ae-3-3.ebr1.Chicago2.Level3.net (4.69.132.62) 51.294 ms 51.304 ms 51.312 ms 10 ae-1-51.edge4.Chicago3.Level3.net (4.69.138.134) 51.721 ms 51.737 ms 51.760 ms 11 KNOLOGY-INC.edge4.Chicago3.Level3.net (4.53.98.42) 51.487 ms 51.502 ms 51.497 ms 12 cr01.xe-1-2-0.siouxfalls.hubh.knology.net (24.214.2.6) 67.504 ms 89.639 ms 67.464 ms 13 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.610 ms 67.558 ms 67.570 ms 14 user-24-96-198-141.knology.net (24.96.198.141) 67.865 ms 67.828 ms 67.848 ms 15 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.572 ms 67.583 ms 67.611 ms 16 user-24-96-198-141.knology.net (24.96.198.141) 96.295 ms 67.852 ms 67.811 ms 17 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.694 ms 67.605 ms 67.602 ms 18 user-24-96-198-141.knology.net (24.96.198.141) 67.879 ms 67.861 ms 67.810 ms 19 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.613 ms 67.592 ms 67.660 ms 20 user-24-96-198-141.knology.net (24.96.198.141) 67.833 ms 85.509 ms 67.876 ms 21 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.620 ms 67.637 ms 67.659 ms 22 user-24-96-198-141.knology.net (24.96.198.141) 67.836 ms 67.863 ms 67.928 ms 23 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.672 ms 67.648 ms 67.682 ms 24 user-24-96-198-141.knology.net (24.96.198.141) 67.940 ms 67.955 ms 118.981 ms 25 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.727 ms 67.797 ms 67.707 ms 26 user-24-96-198-141.knology.net (24.96.198.141) 67.903 ms 67.908 ms 67.956 ms 27 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.719 ms 67.715 ms 67.736 ms 28 user-24-96-198-141.knology.net (24.96.198.141) 68.070 ms 67.926 ms 67.972 ms 29 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.835 ms 67.724 ms^C Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:38 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] MNNS or Digital Plains outage? We have some email queued up to a domain that use digitalplains.net DNS servers (company based in Slayton). Those servers don't respond, and calling the target domain (based in Pipestone) they said that there's an issue upstream, something with Knology. Apparently Digital Plains recently assumed responsibility for all MNNS.COM services, and I can't hit any of their web properties, either. I called Digital Plains toll free support number, but it just goes to someone's voicemail. Anyone know what's going on? Frank ######################################################################## 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

Aug. 23, 2012

Re: Juniper Switch upgrade

by Jay Hanke

> I don't believe Cisco can initiate a BGP session on a secondary address so > once a $C router switches their primary and secondary, they cannot initiate > a BGP session. I'm pretty sure BGP on secondary IP addresses on IOS is permitted since it's unicast and not a link-state protocol like OSPF. Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 23, 2012

Re: MNNS or Digital Plains outage?

by Frank Bulk

I found an old A record for digitalplains.net from DNShistory.org -- looks like a routing loop on Knology's network: nagios:/home/fbulk# tcptraceroute 216.16.38.67 Selected device eth0.3, address 96.31.0.5, port 37082 for outgoing packets Tracing the path to 216.16.38.67 on TCP port 80 (www), 30 hops max 1 router-core-inside.mtcnet.net (96.31.0.254) 0.260 ms 0.179 ms 0.294 ms 2 sxct.movl.mtcnet.net (167.142.156.194) 0.201 ms 0.126 ms 0.133 ms 3 premier.movl-mlx.fbnt.netins.net (173.215.60.1) 2.005 ms 1.956 ms 1.936 ms 4 ins-kb1-te-13-2-220.kmrr.netins.net (167.142.64.253) 6.404 ms 6.402 ms 6.422 ms 5 ins-kc2-et-8-3.kmrr.netins.net (167.142.67.37) 8.122 ms 8.060 ms 8.047 ms 6 ins-dc1-et-8-1.desm.netins.net (167.142.67.29) 8.120 ms 8.091 ms 8.124 ms 7 te-3-3.car2.KansasCity1.Level3.net (4.53.34.113) 14.952 ms 41.355 ms 14.533 ms 8 ae-4-4.ebr2.Denver1.Level3.net (4.69.135.238) 35.185 ms 30.963 ms 26.955 ms 9 ae-3-3.ebr1.Chicago2.Level3.net (4.69.132.62) 51.294 ms 51.304 ms 51.312 ms 10 ae-1-51.edge4.Chicago3.Level3.net (4.69.138.134) 51.721 ms 51.737 ms 51.760 ms 11 KNOLOGY-INC.edge4.Chicago3.Level3.net (4.53.98.42) 51.487 ms 51.502 ms 51.497 ms 12 cr01.xe-1-2-0.siouxfalls.hubh.knology.net (24.214.2.6) 67.504 ms 89.639 ms 67.464 ms 13 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.610 ms 67.558 ms 67.570 ms 14 user-24-96-198-141.knology.net (24.96.198.141) 67.865 ms 67.828 ms 67.848 ms 15 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.572 ms 67.583 ms 67.611 ms 16 user-24-96-198-141.knology.net (24.96.198.141) 96.295 ms 67.852 ms 67.811 ms 17 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.694 ms 67.605 ms 67.602 ms 18 user-24-96-198-141.knology.net (24.96.198.141) 67.879 ms 67.861 ms 67.810 ms 19 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.613 ms 67.592 ms 67.660 ms 20 user-24-96-198-141.knology.net (24.96.198.141) 67.833 ms 85.509 ms 67.876 ms 21 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.620 ms 67.637 ms 67.659 ms 22 user-24-96-198-141.knology.net (24.96.198.141) 67.836 ms 67.863 ms 67.928 ms 23 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.672 ms 67.648 ms 67.682 ms 24 user-24-96-198-141.knology.net (24.96.198.141) 67.940 ms 67.955 ms 118.981 ms 25 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.727 ms 67.797 ms 67.707 ms 26 user-24-96-198-141.knology.net (24.96.198.141) 67.903 ms 67.908 ms 67.956 ms 27 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.719 ms 67.715 ms 67.736 ms 28 user-24-96-198-141.knology.net (24.96.198.141) 68.070 ms 67.926 ms 67.972 ms 29 user-24-96-198-142.knology.net (24.96.198.142) 67.835 ms 67.724 ms^C Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 2:38 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] MNNS or Digital Plains outage? We have some email queued up to a domain that use digitalplains.net DNS servers (company based in Slayton). Those servers don't respond, and calling the target domain (based in Pipestone) they said that there's an issue upstream, something with Knology. Apparently Digital Plains recently assumed responsibility for all MNNS.COM services, and I can't hit any of their web properties, either. I called Digital Plains toll free support number, but it just goes to someone's voicemail. Anyone know what's going on? Frank ######################################################################## 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

Aug. 23, 2012

Re: Juniper Switch upgrade

by Doug McIntyre

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 01:33:13PM -0500, James Stahr wrote: > We can remotely verify that everyone has configured a secondary IP, > but that's just the start. You've also got to duplicate ALL of your > peer BGP sessions beforehand as well. Why? Well, > I don't believe Cisco can initiate a BGP session on a secondary > address so once a $C router switches their primary and secondary, > they cannot initiate a BGP session. Not a problem yet. What about > when the next one does it? Suddenly neither of the Cisco devices > can peer with each other.. I've not been through an exchange > re-address, but given this limitation, I foresee many problems and > the idea of a "flag day" much more appealing - luckily though, most > participants are using the route server. Yeah, I was thinking of that issue as well. Perhaps subinterfaces could be used like int gig 0/0 ip address 69.147.218.100/24 int gig 0/0.0 ip address 206.108.255.100/24 router bgp 65500 neighbor 69.147.218.1 update-source gig0/0 neighbor 206.108.255.1 update-source gig0/0.0 but I don't have anything to test that out with right now. (not using cisco to talk to MICE right now). But I think my two bilateral peers can probably wait for a renumber at some future time as it is. > Hmm... I assume the BIRD configuration allows you to specify source > IP's to be used for each peer? It looks like 'router id' is allowed per AS peer. Leave the existing, and setup a new peer entry to the new IP with the new 'router id'. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> -- ipHouse/Goldengate/Bitstream/ProNS -- Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 23, 2012

MNNS or Digital Plains outage?

by Frank Bulk

We have some email queued up to a domain that use digitalplains.net DNS servers (company based in Slayton). Those servers don't respond, and calling the target domain (based in Pipestone) they said that there's an issue upstream, something with Knology. Apparently Digital Plains recently assumed responsibility for all MNNS.COM services, and I can't hit any of their web properties, either. I called Digital Plains toll free support number, but it just goes to someone's voicemail. Anyone know what's going on? Frank ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 23, 2012

Re: Juniper Switch upgrade

by James Stahr

On 8/22/2012 4:51 PM, Doug McIntyre wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 02:47:21PM -0500, Justin Krejci wrote: > >> While I agree with the general sentiment that the IP change and switch >> change will likely be smooth, the IP change can be done more >> transparently and has literally nothing to do with the L2 gear. >> To that end, I don't see any reason to not configure/assign the new IP >> block now and let folks start using it right away, even before the >> switch switch. >> > But, we don't have a central router? > > If your border to the exchange right now got a prefix with the next > hop of 206.108.255.3, how'd you get there? You'd have no route to host > for 206.108.255.3. > > That is why I brought up the secondary IPs. Once everybody puts in a > secondary IP in 206.108.255.0/24, they'll know how to try to get to > 206.108.255.3 for my prefix announcement. But I can't really do the > prefix announcement with the next-hop in 206.108.255.3 until everybody > knows how to get to 206.108.255.0/24? > > We can remotely verify that everyone has configured a secondary IP, but that's just the start. You've also got to duplicate ALL of your peer BGP sessions beforehand as well. Why? Well, I don't believe Cisco can initiate a BGP session on a secondary address so once a $C router switches their primary and secondary, they cannot initiate a BGP session. Not a problem yet. What about when the next one does it? Suddenly neither of the Cisco devices can peer with each other.. I've not been through an exchange re-address, but given this limitation, I foresee many problems and the idea of a "flag day" much more appealing - luckily though, most participants are using the route server. Hmm... I assume the BIRD configuration allows you to specify source IP's to be used for each peer? -James CDW ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 23, 2012

Re: Juniper Switch upgrade

by Mike Horwath

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 04:45:17PM -0700, Mike Tindle wrote: > Easiest migration is to leave the last octet the same for > everything. Quick regex replace and your old BGP configs have been > copied to the new address range. If you start messing with the > assigned last octets, it's just an added headache. This was a verification item. I am *not* officially involved with the transition. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau(a)iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkeley Fortune ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 23, 2012