- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: FW: Prefix Hijack: 206.108.255.0/24
by Frank Bulk Jan. 14, 2020

Jan. 14, 2020

Thanks for sorting that out! Frank -----Original Message----- From: Brandon Mulligan <brandon(a)nocix.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 4:51 PM To: Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com>; MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Cc: noc(a)wholesaleinternet.net Subject: Re: FW: Prefix Hijack: 206.108.255.0/24 Frank + MICE, This was sent to a new customer by mistake who then sent it to a route collector. I did not detect this in Cogent's looking glass. This should be resolved now. Sorry for the alert and thanks for the notification! On 1/14/2020 3:37 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > Not sure if it's valid, but Hurricane Electric says that MICE's /24 is being infringed upon by AS32097 (WholeSale Internet, Inc.) > > Copying WII. > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: no-reply(a)he.net <no-reply(a)he.net> > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 3:26 PM > Subject: Prefix Hijack: 206.108.255.0/24 > > # Hijack Alert > > You are receiving this e-mail because one of your prefix registrations > matched this alarm. > > Prefix: 206.108.255.0/24 > Infringing AS: 32097 (via peer 23.139.160.84) > AS Path: 26073 32097 > When: 2020-01-14 21:16:50 UTC

1 0

FW: Prefix Hijack: 206.108.255.0/24
by Frank Bulk Jan. 14, 2020

Jan. 14, 2020

Not sure if it's valid, but Hurricane Electric says that MICE's /24 is being infringed upon by AS32097 (WholeSale Internet, Inc.) Copying WII. Frank -----Original Message----- From: no-reply(a)he.net <no-reply(a)he.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 3:26 PM Subject: Prefix Hijack: 206.108.255.0/24 # Hijack Alert You are receiving this e-mail because one of your prefix registrations matched this alarm. Prefix: 206.108.255.0/24 Infringing AS: 32097 (via peer 23.139.160.84) AS Path: 26073 32097 When: 2020-01-14 21:16:50 UTC

1 0

WiscNet Remote Switch / Dedicated Remote Switches
by Richard Laager Jan. 14, 2020

Jan. 14, 2020

I realize I am sending this on a holiday. This does _not_ require immediate attention; next week is fine. ---- WiscNet has proposed a remote switch. I'm forwarding their proposal to the MICE-DISCUSS list per our procedure. You can find it at the bottom of this message. If you have any feedback for the board, please share on-list or off-list, as you prefer. Note that the listserv software sets a Reply-To, so if you are trying to reply off-list, you will have to _edit_ the To field in your reply. The interesting question from my perspective, which we discussed a bit at the last UG, is whether MICE should require remote switches to be dedicated to this purpose. It's my understanding that other exchanges, e.g. SIX, have this requirement. The last few remote switches have all been dedicated, so things had trended that way without it being an official MICE policy. The WiscNet proposal is for a non-dedicated switch which is bringing this question to the forefront. Requiring remote switches to be dedicated is intended to help protect the MICE switching fabric. It would provide a clean demarcation point, which is important for applying rules like one-MAC-per-port, etc. It also reduces the chances of problems in practice due to clean separation, less complexity of configuration, etc. Currently, the following remote switches are, to the best of my knowledge, dedicated: Zayo (formerly Neutral Path) Minnesota VoIP South Front Networks Compudyne The following remote switches are not dedicated: CNS I'm not sure about the following, but they're probably not dedicated: Mankato Networks Northern Lights GigaPoP* * This is something we treat somewhat like a remote switch, but I believe they pre-date the remote switch policy. Note that the non-dedicated switches are the original remote switches or their direct successors. I believe the consensus at the last UG when we discussed this was that: - Implicitly: We need to decide the policy. - Either way, the policy needs to apply to all remote switches; i.e. we don't reject some solely for being non-dedicated while accepting others. - If we require remotes to be dedicated, existing non-dedicated switches need to be grandfathered for at least some amount of time. Upgrades to new switches would end grandfathering. I do not feel confident saying there was a consensus on the actual question of whether dedicated switches should be required or not. If you feel I misjudged the consensus of the room in either direction, please let me know. If a dedicated switch was required, WiscNet would have to add an additional switch, which would look like this: [MICE Arista] | | 100G-LR4 | [WiscNet MICE Remote Switch ] * No VLANs, All Untagged | | | 100G-SR4 | 100G-SR4 | | | VLAN 123 | VLAN 456 | untagged | untagged [WiscNet Existing Switch] | | | existing | existing | 100G-LR4 | 100G-LR4 | | [WiscNet MX] [Iowa MX] The VLAN IDs (123, 456) are made-up examples. We discussed this and other alternatives off-list. WiscNet is firmly opposed to adding such an additional switch. If MICE requires dedicated remote switches, WiscNet will not operate a remote switch. They will still upgrade their connectivity to MICE to 100G, but Iowa and MERIT will likely be left out (unless they decide to get their own MICE ports). I (and I assume the rest of the board) would also be especially interested to hear from the other operators of non-dedicated remote switches. Feel free to reply on-list or off-list at your option. As per the usual remote switch procedure, after there's been an opportunity for comments, the next step is for the board to vote on the WiscNet remote switch proposal. Approving this proposal implicitly decides that non-dedicated switches are okay, at least for now. It is my view that we should _explicitly_ decide the dedicated remote switch question one way or another, so I will also ask for a board decision on that, but I cannot _require_ such a decision individually, of course. There is no specific timeline on this, but if you have thoughts, please share them as soon as possible. Finally, while this is already public knowledge, I'd like to specifically disclose that my employer's connection to MICE is on the CNS switch, a non-dedicated remote switch. -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: WiscNet - AS2381 - Mice Remote Switch Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:22:44 +0000 From: Chris Wopat <wopat(a)wiscnet.net> Hi folks, sorry for the multi-week week delay in responding. I've attached a simplified diagram indicating how WiscNet would like to connect to MICE. The diagram is separated by three phases- Current, Proposed, Future. We are looking to transition from our current 10g connection via University of Minnesota Gigapop, to a direct 100g connection from the MICE core Arista switch to WiscNet's recently installed QFX10002. We would like to have the ability to share this connection with other Research and Education organizations that may already connect to our existing switch, as well as a few who may connect to it in the future. Known entities on the interested list are University of Iowa (AS3676) and MERIT Network (AS237). This list may grow a little over time, but it's likely that we'll be able to count this number entities on one hand. WiscNet is a non profit 501(c)(3) who per our bylaws (https://www.wiscnet.net/bylaws) primarily serve educational institutions and do not service commercial entities. When WiscNet recently reached out asking to become a MICE remote switch, we were disappointed to hear that a recent(?) policy change was made indicating that remote switches must be dedicated for MICE usage only. We will not be able to dedicate this device for MICE usage, nor would it be cost effective to purchase a separate switch just for this purpose. We're hoping that there's some middle category here where we're a switch + our few research partners, similar to how a few entities are set up today. Cheers, -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

10 16

Please Welcome Aureon Network Services to MICE!
by Jay Hanke Jan. 10, 2020

Jan. 10, 2020

Name: Aureon Network Services Port: Ethernet 3/16/1 (Main Switch 100G) ASN: 5056 IPv4: 206.108.255.153/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:13c0::1/64 Peering Contact: peering(a)aureon.net Route Servers- YES BFD: No Welcome aboard! -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

2 2

Route reflector check
by Frank Bulk Dec. 31, 2019

Dec. 31, 2019

QRator has been alerting me that AS 3128 is coming and going. It just happened again and wondering if anyone else is seeing this behavior and also how things look on MICE's route reflectors. I already contacted the good folks at the University of Wisconsin and they're not seeing anything on their side. AS Number: AS3128 AS Name: # First seen Last seen 1 2019-12-29 21:49:00 2019-12-29 21:50:00 2 2019-12-29 18:42:00 2019-12-29 18:43:00 3 2019-12-29 17:57:00 2019-12-29 17:58:00 4 2019-12-29 16:27:00 2019-12-29 16:28:00 5 2019-12-29 14:12:00 2019-12-29 14:13:00 6 2019-12-29 13:27:00 2019-12-29 13:28:00 7 2019-12-29 12:42:00 2019-12-29 12:43:00 8 2019-12-29 11:57:00 2019-12-29 11:58:00 9 2019-12-29 11:12:00 2019-12-29 11:13:00 10 2019-12-29 11:04:00 2019-12-29 11:05:00 11 2019-12-29 10:27:00 2019-12-29 10:28:00 12 2019-12-29 08:57:00 2019-12-29 08:58:00 13 2019-12-29 08:12:00 2019-12-29 08:13:00 14 2019-12-29 07:53:00 2019-12-29 07:54:00 15 2019-12-29 07:27:00 2019-12-29 07:28:00 16 2019-12-29 06:42:00 2019-12-29 06:43:00 17 2019-12-29 05:57:00 2019-12-29 05:58:00 18 2019-12-29 05:12:00 2019-12-29 05:13:00 19 2019-12-29 04:40:00 2019-12-29 04:41:00 20 2019-12-29 04:27:00 2019-12-29 04:28:00 21 2019-12-29 00:05:00 2019-12-29 00:06:00 22 2019-12-28 23:57:00 2019-12-28 23:58:00 23 2019-12-28 23:12:00 2019-12-28 23:13:00 24 2019-12-28 23:04:00 2019-12-28 23:05:00 25 2019-12-28 22:27:00 2019-12-28 22:28:00 26 2019-12-28 21:42:00 2019-12-28 21:43:00 27 2019-12-28 20:57:00 2019-12-28 20:58:00 28 2019-12-28 20:12:00 2019-12-28 20:13:00 29 2019-12-28 07:27:00 2019-12-28 07:28:00 30 2019-12-28 06:42:00 2019-12-28 06:43:00 31 2019-12-28 05:57:00 2019-12-28 05:58:00 32 2019-12-28 05:12:00 2019-12-28 05:13:00 33 2019-12-27 17:21:00 2019-12-27 17:22:00 34 2019-12-06 07:01:00 2019-12-27 06:10:00 Frank

3 4

Nuvera Port Upgrade
by Jay Hanke Dec. 20, 2019

Dec. 20, 2019

Nuvera will be upgrading to 2x10G LAG on new ports and then removing their existing port. The new port assignments are (Main Switch) Ethernet 4/28 Ethernet 5/28 This port will be vacated Ethernet 4/15 Thanks! -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

3 2

MICE MAC Address Limit
by Richard Laager Dec. 14, 2019

Dec. 14, 2019

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://www.ams-ix.net/ams/documentation/config-guide 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. -- Richard

2 2

NebraskaLink Port Move
by Jay Hanke Dec. 12, 2019

Dec. 12, 2019

Nebraskalink is moving their connection from the Zayo remote switch to the main switch. All IP address/Contact information will remain the same. The new port assignment is Main Switch: Ethernet4/13 Welcome aboard again! -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

1 0

MICE graphs - gap from today?
by Andrew Hoyos Dec. 4, 2019

Dec. 4, 2019

Hi folks, Looks like the Cacti graphs are showing a gap from this afternoon. Anyone know what happened? — Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com <mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>

2 1

Internet Wether Report
by David Farmer Dec. 3, 2019

Dec. 3, 2019

Anyone notice the somewhat impressive approximately 100G traffic spike on MICE just after 12 noon today, I'm told that is Halo for XBox One. https://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/gaming/1211738/Halo-Reach-Release-D… -- =============================================== 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 ===============================================

3 2