- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Chicago Problem for MN content

by Andrew Hoyos

On Apr 14, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Steve Howard wrote: > If the State would connect, I think that would get Zayo/Onvoy > connectivity. This neat little website from VISI indicates that > Onvoy/Zayo is connected to the GigaPOP: http://noc.visi.com/cgi-bin/nllxp That would imply that UofM/State of MN would be providing transit for Zayo/Onvoy between the NLLXP and MICE, as well as advertising commercial routes learned at NLLXP to peers at MICE. I wouldn't think that would be the case, although, someone can correct me if I'm wrong. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 14, 2011

Re: Chicago Problem for MN content

by Jay Hanke

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Dan Olsen <Dano(a)windomnet.com> wrote: > What do you think? This just changed back to this route now. Seems like > the 3 hop Is new today. Zayo is must be connected to L3 in Chicago so I has to bounce back and forth. It's slightly less dirty that Level3 doing the bouncing on their own. If I run to ipHouse from my office on Hickorytech it stays local. Jerry, are we ready to turn up the MICE connection? Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 14, 2011

Re: Chicago Problem for MN content

by Steve Howard

Jay, On 04/14/2011 09:12 AM, Jay Hanke wrote: > Zayo and INS could fix this by connecting to MICE.... :) Agreed. If the State would connect, I think that would get Zayo/Onvoy connectivity. This neat little website from VISI indicates that Onvoy/Zayo is connected to the GigaPOP: http://noc.visi.com/cgi-bin/nllxp Dave, how is the connection coming along? Is there anything that we can do to help you get it done? Thanks, Steve ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 14, 2011

Re: Chicago Problem for MN content

by Dan Olsen

What do you think? This just changed back to this route now. Seems like the 3 hop Is new today. And yes we are working on becoming a MICE affiliate. 1 3 ms 2 ms 8 ms 198-174-42-254.windomnet.com [198.174.42.254] 2 18 ms 11 ms 12 ms 199.199.48.53 3 65 ms 61 ms 49 ms ae6.100-ONVOY-INC.edge2.chi2.net [4.79.160.9] 4 27 ms 24 ms 28 ms vlan51.ebr1.chicago2.level3.net [4.69.138.158] 5 41 ms 46 ms 24 ms ae-6-6.ebr1.chicago1.level3.net [4.69.140.189] 6 85 ms 77 ms 68 ms ae-4-4.car1.Minneapolis1.Level3.net [4.69.136.105] 7 38 ms 52 ms 32 ms ae-11-11.car2.Minneapolis1.Level3.net [4.69.136.102] 8 38 ms 36 ms 45 ms NBC-COMMUNI.car2.Minneapolis1.Level3.net [4.59.66.2] 9 * * * Request timed out. 10 * * * Request timed out. 11 121 ms 114 ms 118 ms ins-db1-et-12-1.desm.netins.net [167.142.67.6] 12 65 ms 67 ms 68 ms webhosting.netins.net [167.142.226.220] race complete. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:12 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Chicago Problem for MN content On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: > I asked INS to ask Level3 -- turns out that the hop labeled "ge-6-16.car1.Minneapolis1.Level3.net [4.79.160.9]" just has a wrong PTR, and is actually in Chicago. The updated DNS should be reflected in a few hours. Thanks for following up. I'm pretty sure it is still bouncing back and forth between Chicago and Minneapolis because Zayo (hop 2) is in Minneapolis. It must be that Zayo is picking up L3 in Chicago. I wonder if the issue is that a couple of the "Legacy networks" never got integrated. Zayo and INS could fix this by connecting to MICE.... :) Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1321 / Virus Database: 1500/3573 - Release Date: 04/14/11 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 14, 2011

Re: Chicago Problem for MN content

by Dan Olsen

1 3 ms 2 ms 2 ms 198-174-42-254.windomnet.com [198.174.42.254] 2 7 ms 8 ms 7 ms 199.199.48.53 3 44 ms 25 ms 22 ms ae6.100-ONVOY-INC.edge2.chi2.net [4.79.160.9] 4 21 ms 29 ms 25 ms ae-2-52.edge4.chicago3.level3.net [4.69.138.166] 5 17 ms 22 ms 17 ms 63.146.27.17 6 * * * Request timed out. 7 57 ms 58 ms 58 ms 63-234-167-238.dia.static.qwest.net [63.234.167.238] 8 53 ms 53 ms 56 ms ins-db1-et-12-1.desm.netins.net [167.142.67.6] 9 105 ms 129 ms 132 ms webhosting.netins.net [167.142.226.220] race complete. :\Users\Dano> Dan Olsen Operations Manager Windomnet City OF Windom 443 10th St PO Box 38 Windom MN 56101 507-832-8007 -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:19 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Chicago Problem for MN content Perhaps RTT can be a hint as to the distance between hops. As of a few minutes ago, traffic to 198-174-42-254.windomnet.com is now going via Qwest instead of Level3. Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:12 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Chicago Problem for MN content On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: > I asked INS to ask Level3 -- turns out that the hop labeled "ge-6-16.car1.Minneapolis1.Level3.net [4.79.160.9]" just has a wrong PTR, and is actually in Chicago. The updated DNS should be reflected in a few hours. Thanks for following up. I'm pretty sure it is still bouncing back and forth between Chicago and Minneapolis because Zayo (hop 2) is in Minneapolis. It must be that Zayo is picking up L3 in Chicago. I wonder if the issue is that a couple of the "Legacy networks" never got integrated. Zayo and INS could fix this by connecting to MICE.... :) Jay ######################################################################## 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 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1321 / Virus Database: 1500/3573 - Release Date: 04/14/11 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 14, 2011

Re: Chicago Problem for MN content

by Frank Bulk

Perhaps RTT can be a hint as to the distance between hops. As of a few minutes ago, traffic to 198-174-42-254.windomnet.com is now going via Qwest instead of Level3. Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 9:12 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Chicago Problem for MN content On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: > I asked INS to ask Level3 -- turns out that the hop labeled "ge-6-16.car1.Minneapolis1.Level3.net [4.79.160.9]" just has a wrong PTR, and is actually in Chicago. The updated DNS should be reflected in a few hours. Thanks for following up. I'm pretty sure it is still bouncing back and forth between Chicago and Minneapolis because Zayo (hop 2) is in Minneapolis. It must be that Zayo is picking up L3 in Chicago. I wonder if the issue is that a couple of the "Legacy networks" never got integrated. Zayo and INS could fix this by connecting to MICE.... :) Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 14, 2011

Re: Chicago Problem for MN content

by Jay Hanke

On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: > I asked INS to ask Level3 -- turns out that the hop labeled "ge-6-16.car1.Minneapolis1.Level3.net [4.79.160.9]" just has a wrong PTR, and is actually in Chicago. The updated DNS should be reflected in a few hours. Thanks for following up. I'm pretty sure it is still bouncing back and forth between Chicago and Minneapolis because Zayo (hop 2) is in Minneapolis. It must be that Zayo is picking up L3 in Chicago. I wonder if the issue is that a couple of the "Legacy networks" never got integrated. Zayo and INS could fix this by connecting to MICE.... :) Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 14, 2011

Re: Chicago Problem for MN content

by Frank Bulk

I asked INS to ask Level3 -- turns out that the hop labeled "ge-6-16.car1.Minneapolis1.Level3.net [4.79.160.9]" just has a wrong PTR, and is actually in Chicago. The updated DNS should be reflected in a few hours. Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Chicago Problem for MN content I ran a couple of trace routes to "Minnesota Content". http://mankatonetworks.com/wordpress/?p=68 Hickorytech isn't currently exchanging traffic on the exchange. Would a couple of you who are forward looking run some traces to various Minnesota content and post results? jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 14, 2011

Re: Akamai Peering

by Jay Hanke

>> Exactly. The traffic balance will follow internet BGP magic. >> > No, that's a very gross oversimplification. Akamai does a lot of traffic engineering. I'm talking about the traffic feeding the cluster. We'll (MICE) control the router and BGP advertisements on that side. Granted inbound traffic balancing is not hugely flexible. On the traffic coming out of the cluster that's all in the hands of Akamai. There is a risk that the Akamai cluster may end up feeding 3rd parties. Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 14, 2011

Re: Akamai Peering

by Owen DeLong

On Apr 14, 2011, at 6:27 AM, Jay Hanke wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Owen DeLong <owend(a)he.net> wrote: >> I doubt Akamai will use them evenly. Akamai will toss traffic wherever it is most advantageous >> to Akamai. >> > > Exactly. The traffic balance will follow internet BGP magic. > No, that's a very gross oversimplification. Akamai does a lot of traffic engineering. >> They will not likely saturate anyone's network (after all, that's also counter-productive for their >> own goals in most cases). > > Also consider that the cluster will output significantly more > bandwidth than is downloaded over the Internet the load shouldn't be > more than the benefit. In smaller deployments, I've commonly seen > bandwidth savings of 2:1 or 3:1. If things got really lopsided we > could modify the BGP attributes to even it out. We're not talking a > huge amount of bandwidth with a small cluster (100 or 200 Mb/s peak > down from the internet). > I doubt BGP metrics will actually have much effect on Akamai's traffic engineering decisions. I'm not saying I think Akamai will do bad things, but, the control of where the traffic goes will be almost entirely in the hands of Akamai and you are along for the ride. Owen > jay > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 14, 2011