mice-discuss

By thread

mice-discuss@lists.micemn.net

1 participants
6634 messages

Please welcome Truestream to MICE!

by Jeremy Lumby

Name: Truestream Switch: MICE Core Port: E 6/28/1 ASN: 398143 IPv4: All IP info remains the same, this is just a port upgrade from 10G to 100G IPv6: Peering Contact: peering(a)truestreamfiber.com Route Servers: No BFD: No Welcome Aboard Again! Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S #216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 Direct: 612-392-6814 Fax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

Nov. 21, 2022

Re: Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am?

by David Farmer

Just so you know, Cloudflare is back as of Friday. Thanks On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 2:55 PM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > I have been told that they have replaced the same Juniper switch two > different times, and the two different replacements keep showing the same > errors as the original. This is corroborated with their MICE link coming > up briefly twice since they originally rerouted. > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] *On Behalf > Of *David Farmer > *Sent:* Monday, October 31, 2022 2:48 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this > morning at 4:13 am? > > > > Any word from Cloudflare? They will have been in re-routed mode for three > weeks on Wednesday. > > > > They have theoretically completed two maintenance events since then; > > > > https://www.cloudflarestatus.com/incidents/txnkvw6frp25 > > https://www.cloudflarestatus.com/incidents/pqwsjx82wdt2 > > > > Thanks > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 11:08 AM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > Yes, the last time they had a failure in Minneapolis it took them just shy > of 2 weeks to get back online. > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] *On Behalf > Of *Steve Savoy > *Sent:* Thursday, October 20, 2022 10:39 AM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this > morning at 4:13 am? > > > > I am pretty new to the CloudFlare peering. Anyone else go through the > “Re-routed” scenario before? Will it eventually become “Operational”? > > > > Thank you, > > Steve > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> *On Behalf Of *David > Farmer > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 12, 2022 11:59 AM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this > morning at 4:13 am? > > > > If you check Cloudflare’s status page you will see Minneapolis is in > “Re-routed” state. > > > > https://www.cloudflarestatus.com > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:45 Steve Savoy <stevesavoy(a)wctatel.com> wrote: > > Yes – ours went down at the same time. > > > > Steve > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> *On Behalf Of *Frank > Bulk > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 12, 2022 10:42 AM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this > morning at 4:13 am? > > > > Both IPv4 and IPv6. I didn’t see any exceeding of prefix limits. > > > > Frank > > > > Oct 12 04:13:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) > SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 206.108.255.45 ( > AS13335.micemn.net) (AS 13335 CLOUDFLARENET, US) old state Established > event HoldTime new state Idle > > Oct 12 04:13:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) > SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 2001:504:27::3417:0:1 > (AS13335.micemn.net) (AS 13335 CLOUDFLARENET, US) old state Established > event HoldTime new state Idle > > > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > Confidentiality Notice: This correspondence is the property of Winnebago > Cooperative Telecom Association and is for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any > unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email > and destroy all copies of the original message. > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > -- > > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > > > > > -- > > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================

Nov. 14, 2022

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Tom Krenn

Fair enough. You have always been fast with everything from what I've seen. Tom Krenn Network Architect Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology [Hennepin County logo] From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Thursday, November 3, 2022 8:53 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only Honestly I think the amount of work is minimal. I say that as the person that will probably be doing most of the work. There is even more that we should be doing to keep the IX clean and stable (like adding a quarantine VLAN to the turn-up process) which will add even more labor to the turn-up process. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Tom Krenn Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2022 8:27 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only Depends on the goal right? Stopping the 2 seconds of damage or recovering from 2 seconds of damage. (Ideally probably both.) But just throwing ideas out given the concerns being brought up with a static MAC ACL. Tom Krenn Network Architect Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology [Hennepin County logo] From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 6:04 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only I think the way to think about it was the damage was done in 2 seconds (according to the syslog), however the switch did not automatically recover from those 2 seconds. So we need a method that will react quicker than 2 seconds like a MAC ACL. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Tom Krenn Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2022 4:24 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only I don't know the config of the switch but out of curiosity, would storm control help mitigate the impact on the forwarding table? We might still have 2-3 seconds of disruption but it may avoid the manual intervention and let us keep the more dynamic port security approach. Tom Krenn Network Architect Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology [Hennepin County logo] From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:12 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only The issue was a member port. The port security took 2 seconds to shutdown the port, however 100G of traffic looped and crashed the forwarding table on the main switch, forcing manual intervention. A static MAC ACL on each port would not have taken time to react. This is what the SIX has been doing on their ports since 2010 (as well as multiple other layers of security). From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Kittel, Brady Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:07 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only Was the source of the issue a remote switch? " To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those settings as described here." -Brady ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> on behalf of Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)SOUTHFRONT.IO<mailto:jayhanke@SOUTHFRONT.IO>> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:05:08 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only CAUTION: This email originated from outside of HCMC. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The error disable takes 1-2 seconds to clamp down and disable the port. This results in a short, but severe, broadcast storm. The churn rate on members changing mac addresses is fairly low. I agree that we should automate the process so it can be done via self-service by the members. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:59 AM Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net<mailto:showard@paulbunyan.net>> wrote: > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > enforce this per-VLAN. > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > this to the board for a vote. > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > ----- > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i…<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i…> > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > settings as described here. > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io<mailto:jayhanke@southfront.io> Phone 612-204-0000 Confidentiality Notice: Information contained in this e-mail is being sent to you after appropriate authorization or by legal exception. You are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Re-disclosure without patient consent or as permitted by law is prohibited and may subject you to state and/or federal penalties. This information may also be legally privileged, the disclosure of which is governed by law. This information is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any access, disclosure, copying or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return or proof of destruction of the information contained in this message. ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system. ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system. ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system.

Nov. 3, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jeremy Lumby

I do not know that there is an official scope. I think things are just in the discussion stage. I do believe we all know what needs to be done, it is just about being motivated to get it all done (in this case a switch issue pushed it back to the front). There are plenty of IXes that have laid out and implemented best practices that have been proven in reality to work for them. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Chris Wopat Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2022 9:21 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only Could someone confirm the larger scope of this? Our remote switch indeed has static mac ACLs. Unsure how others work. If the goal here is to keep a static mac list on all access ports AND remote switch ports (so my list must be replicated to the core switch)? If so, lets be sure to consider operational issues. I'm unsure how mac ACLs work on arista, but is there a risk to block all mac addresses while the changes is being made if done incorrectly? (think the classic IOS 'switchport trunk allowed vlan 123..')? If this is being done by humans, hoping the procedure is documented and repeatable (a copy paste to do it). Or better yet, but our machine overlords (via NAPALM?) Cheers, -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Nov. 3, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Chris Wopat

Could someone confirm the larger scope of this? Our remote switch indeed has static mac ACLs. Unsure how others work. If the goal here is to keep a static mac list on all access ports AND remote switch ports (so my list must be replicated to the core switch)? If so, lets be sure to consider operational issues. I'm unsure how mac ACLs work on arista, but is there a risk to block all mac addresses while the changes is being made if done incorrectly? (think the classic IOS 'switchport trunk allowed vlan 123..')? If this is being done by humans, hoping the procedure is documented and repeatable (a copy paste to do it). Or better yet, but our machine overlords (via NAPALM?) Cheers, -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Nov. 3, 2022

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jeremy Lumby

Honestly I think the amount of work is minimal. I say that as the person that will probably be doing most of the work. There is even more that we should be doing to keep the IX clean and stable (like adding a quarantine VLAN to the turn-up process) which will add even more labor to the turn-up process. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Tom Krenn Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2022 8:27 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only Depends on the goal right? Stopping the 2 seconds of damage or recovering from 2 seconds of damage. (Ideally probably both.) But just throwing ideas out given the concerns being brought up with a static MAC ACL. Tom Krenn Network Architect Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 6:04 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only I think the way to think about it was the damage was done in 2 seconds (according to the syslog), however the switch did not automatically recover from those 2 seconds. So we need a method that will react quicker than 2 seconds like a MAC ACL. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Tom Krenn Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2022 4:24 PM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only I don't know the config of the switch but out of curiosity, would storm control help mitigate the impact on the forwarding table? We might still have 2-3 seconds of disruption but it may avoid the manual intervention and let us keep the more dynamic port security approach. Tom Krenn Network Architect Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:12 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only The issue was a member port. The port security took 2 seconds to shutdown the port, however 100G of traffic looped and crashed the forwarding table on the main switch, forcing manual intervention. A static MAC ACL on each port would not have taken time to react. This is what the SIX has been doing on their ports since 2010 (as well as multiple other layers of security). From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Kittel, Brady Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:07 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only Was the source of the issue a remote switch? " To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remoteswitches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcingthe current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing thosesettings as described here." -Brady ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)SOUTHFRONT.IO> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:05:08 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only CAUTION: This email originated from outside of HCMC. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The error disable takes 1-2 seconds to clamp down and disable the port. This results in a short, but severe, broadcast storm. The churn rate on members changing mac addresses is fairly low. I agree that we should automate the process so it can be done via self-service by the members. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:59 AM Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > enforce this per-VLAN. > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > this to the board for a vote. > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > ----- > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: >https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i… <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i…> > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > settings as described here. > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho… <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000 Confidentiality Notice: Information contained in this e-mail is being sent to you after appropriate authorization or by legal exception. You are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Re-disclosure without patient consent or as permitted by law is prohibited and may subject you to state and/or federal penalties. This information may also be legally privileged, the disclosure of which is governed by law. This information is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any access, disclosure, copying or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return or proof of destruction of the information contained in this message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Nov. 3, 2022

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Tom Krenn

Depends on the goal right? Stopping the 2 seconds of damage or recovering from 2 seconds of damage. (Ideally probably both.) But just throwing ideas out given the concerns being brought up with a static MAC ACL. Tom Krenn Network Architect Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology [Hennepin County logo] From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 6:04 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only I think the way to think about it was the damage was done in 2 seconds (according to the syslog), however the switch did not automatically recover from those 2 seconds. So we need a method that will react quicker than 2 seconds like a MAC ACL. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Tom Krenn Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2022 4:24 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only I don't know the config of the switch but out of curiosity, would storm control help mitigate the impact on the forwarding table? We might still have 2-3 seconds of disruption but it may avoid the manual intervention and let us keep the more dynamic port security approach. Tom Krenn Network Architect Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology [Hennepin County logo] From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:12 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only The issue was a member port. The port security took 2 seconds to shutdown the port, however 100G of traffic looped and crashed the forwarding table on the main switch, forcing manual intervention. A static MAC ACL on each port would not have taken time to react. This is what the SIX has been doing on their ports since 2010 (as well as multiple other layers of security). From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Kittel, Brady Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:07 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only Was the source of the issue a remote switch? " To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those settings as described here." -Brady ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> on behalf of Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)SOUTHFRONT.IO<mailto:jayhanke@SOUTHFRONT.IO>> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:05:08 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only CAUTION: This email originated from outside of HCMC. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The error disable takes 1-2 seconds to clamp down and disable the port. This results in a short, but severe, broadcast storm. The churn rate on members changing mac addresses is fairly low. I agree that we should automate the process so it can be done via self-service by the members. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:59 AM Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net<mailto:showard@paulbunyan.net>> wrote: > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > enforce this per-VLAN. > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > this to the board for a vote. > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > ----- > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i…<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i…> > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > settings as described here. > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io<mailto:jayhanke@southfront.io> Phone 612-204-0000 Confidentiality Notice: Information contained in this e-mail is being sent to you after appropriate authorization or by legal exception. You are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Re-disclosure without patient consent or as permitted by law is prohibited and may subject you to state and/or federal penalties. This information may also be legally privileged, the disclosure of which is governed by law. This information is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any access, disclosure, copying or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return or proof of destruction of the information contained in this message. ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system. ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system.

Nov. 3, 2022

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jeremy Lumby

I think the way to think about it was the damage was done in 2 seconds (according to the syslog), however the switch did not automatically recover from those 2 seconds. So we need a method that will react quicker than 2 seconds like a MAC ACL. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Tom Krenn Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2022 4:24 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only I don't know the config of the switch but out of curiosity, would storm control help mitigate the impact on the forwarding table? We might still have 2-3 seconds of disruption but it may avoid the manual intervention and let us keep the more dynamic port security approach. Tom Krenn Network Architect Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:12 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only The issue was a member port. The port security took 2 seconds to shutdown the port, however 100G of traffic looped and crashed the forwarding table on the main switch, forcing manual intervention. A static MAC ACL on each port would not have taken time to react. This is what the SIX has been doing on their ports since 2010 (as well as multiple other layers of security). From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Kittel, Brady Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:07 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only Was the source of the issue a remote switch? " To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remoteswitches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcingthe current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing thosesettings as described here." -Brady ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)SOUTHFRONT.IO> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:05:08 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only CAUTION: This email originated from outside of HCMC. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The error disable takes 1-2 seconds to clamp down and disable the port. This results in a short, but severe, broadcast storm. The churn rate on members changing mac addresses is fairly low. I agree that we should automate the process so it can be done via self-service by the members. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:59 AM Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > enforce this per-VLAN. > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > this to the board for a vote. > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > ----- > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: >https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i… <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i…> > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > settings as described here. > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho… <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000 Confidentiality Notice: Information contained in this e-mail is being sent to you after appropriate authorization or by legal exception. You are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Re-disclosure without patient consent or as permitted by law is prohibited and may subject you to state and/or federal penalties. This information may also be legally privileged, the disclosure of which is governed by law. This information is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any access, disclosure, copying or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return or proof of destruction of the information contained in this message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Nov. 2, 2022

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jeremy Lumby

That was a direct quote from Arista Support. Based on the context that it was used in I would say that means that the forwarding table stopped functioning and the default fallback is to flood everything. They recommended a software update since there were some forwarding table issues fixed in more recent versions, however they could not 100% guarantee the software update would provide complete protection. Arista Support pointed out how destabilizing a loop can be @ 100Gig even if it is only for the 2 seconds that we experienced before port security kicked in (especially with how much traffic an IX is carrying to flow through the loop). When talking with Chris @ the SIX he mentioned that they went to the static ACL method because the port security runs on the control plane, so it will always be slow. A MAC ACL runs on the ASIC so it is about as instantaneous as you are going to get. The port that caused the issue last week had a 1 MAC address limit on it through port security, and not through a MAC ACL. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Howard Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2022 4:59 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only What does "crashed the forwarding table" actually mean? Does that mean that the mac address table filled and the switch then flooded to all ports? Was there a mac address limit or a static MAC ACL on the port that caused the problem? On 10/31/22 09:12, Jeremy Lumby wrote: The issue was a member port. The port security took 2 seconds to shutdown the port, however 100G of traffic looped and crashed the forwarding table on the main switch, forcing manual intervention. A static MAC ACL on each port would not have taken time to react. This is what the SIX has been doing on their ports since 2010 (as well as multiple other layers of security). From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Kittel, Brady Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:07 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only Was the source of the issue a remote switch? " To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remoteswitches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcingthe current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing thosesettings as described here." -Brady --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MICE Discuss<MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jay Hanke<jayhanke(a)SOUTHFRONT.IO> <jayhanke(a)SOUTHFRONT.IO> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:05:08 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only CAUTION: This email originated from outside of HCMC. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The error disable takes 1-2 seconds to clamp down and disable the port. This results in a short, but severe, broadcast storm. The churn rate on members changing mac addresses is fairly low. I agree that we should automate the process so it can be done via self-service by the members. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:59 AM Steve Howard<showard(a)paulbunyan.net> <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > enforce this per-VLAN. > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > this to the board for a vote. > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > ----- > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: >https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i… > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > settings as described here. > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho… -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000 Confidentiality Notice: Information contained in this e-mail is being sent to you after appropriate authorization or by legal exception. You are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Re-disclosure without patient consent or as permitted by law is prohibited and may subject you to state and/or federal penalties. This information may also be legally privileged, the disclosure of which is governed by law. This information is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any access, disclosure, copying or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return or proof of destruction of the information contained in this message. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Nov. 2, 2022

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Steve Howard

Nov. 2, 2022

Jump to page: