- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Cologix donates Loaner 4550 switch

by Reid Fishler

I want to thank Cologix for their continued support. Reid On Oct 20, 2015 11:51 AM, "Mike Hemphill" <mike.hemphill(a)cologix.com> wrote: > Good afternoon, > > Cologix has donated a loaner Juniper 4550 to augment the existing Juniper > platform. > > The intent is to provide a bridge to an ultimate upgrade in the switching > platform to a more robust chassis solution. > > Cologix has purchased a new 4550 which it is “loaning” to MICE. > > This will allow MICE to accept additional 10-Gig members. > > Additionally, Cologix will provide the maintenance coverage for this > device under an agreement that we have that is covering the rest of the > Cologix Juniper platform devices. > > Cologix is pleased to support MICE and we truly appreciate our customers > business & the opportunity to host the MICE platform in the Cologix data > center. > > Best regards, > > Mike > > > > Mike Hemphill > General Manager | *Cologix, Inc.* <http://www.cologix.com/> > 511 11th Ave S, Suite 200 | Minneapolis, MN 55415 > P: 1+612.333.1922 | M: 1+612.812.5242 > mike.hemphill(a)cologix.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Oct. 20, 2015

Cologix donates Loaner 4550 switch

by Mike Hemphill

Good afternoon, Cologix has donated a loaner Juniper 4550 to augment the existing Juniper platform. The intent is to provide a bridge to an ultimate upgrade in the switching platform to a more robust chassis solution. Cologix has purchased a new 4550 which it is “loaning” to MICE. This will allow MICE to accept additional 10-Gig members. Additionally, Cologix will provide the maintenance coverage for this device under an agreement that we have that is covering the rest of the Cologix Juniper platform devices. Cologix is pleased to support MICE and we truly appreciate our customers business & the opportunity to host the MICE platform in the Cologix data center. Best regards, Mike Mike Hemphill General Manager | *Cologix, Inc.* <http://www.cologix.com/> 511 11th Ave S, Suite 200 | Minneapolis, MN 55415 P: 1+612.333.1922 | M: 1+612.812.5242 mike.hemphill(a)cologix.com

Oct. 20, 2015

MICE UG Meeting

by Shaun Carlson

Good morning all! We are planning on having the next UG meeting on November 16th at 1 pm in the 511 building. I will send out a follow-up with more specific information in the next couple of days. Please let me know what agenda items you may have for the meeting! Thanks! s *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

Oct. 19, 2015

Re: Netflix Issues

by Andrew Hoyos

https://twitter.com/Neustar/status/654780398287745024 <https://twitter.com/Neustar/status/654780398287745024> -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Oct 15, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Charles Monson <monson(a)wins.net> wrote: > > I can confirm from Airstream. I also tried DNS lookups against 4.2.2.1 and 8.8.8.8 and both failed. Downdetector.com shows a lot of reports in the last 30 minutes or so too. > > > Charles Monson > Associate Network Administrator, Airstream Communications (AS11796) > P: 715-838-4432 | www.wins.net > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 4:58 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Netflix Issues > > I have received several complaints of people not being able to get to Netflix, and after some research it appears that they are using ULTRADNS.NET for their name servers, and that is where the issue lies. I just wanted to see if others were seeing the same thing. > > Jeremy Lumby > Minnesota VoIP > 9217 17th Ave S > Suite 216 > Bloomington, MN 55425 > Main: 612-355-7740 x211 > Direct: 612-392-6814 > EFax: 952-873-7425 > jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

Oct. 15, 2015

Re: Netflix Issues

by Charles Monson

I can confirm from Airstream. I also tried DNS lookups against 4.2.2.1 and 8.8.8.8 and both failed. Downdetector.com shows a lot of reports in the last 30 minutes or so too. Charles Monson Associate Network Administrator, Airstream Communications (AS11796) P: 715-838-4432 | www.wins.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 4:58 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Netflix Issues I have received several complaints of people not being able to get to Netflix, and after some research it appears that they are using ULTRADNS.NET for their name servers, and that is where the issue lies. I just wanted to see if others were seeing the same thing. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

Oct. 15, 2015

Re: Netflix Issues

by Doug McIntyre

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 04:58:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > I have received several complaints of people not being able to get to Netflix, and after some research it appears that they are using ULTRADNS.NET for their name servers, and that is where the issue lies. I just wanted to see if others were seeing the same thing. Outages list reports major dDoS against UltraDNS, especially their east coast datacenter.. https://twitter.com/hashtag/ultradns -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 15, 2015

Netflix Issues

by Jeremy Lumby

I have received several complaints of people not being able to get to Netflix, and after some research it appears that they are using ULTRADNS.NET for their name servers, and that is where the issue lies. I just wanted to see if others were seeing the same thing. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

Oct. 15, 2015

Switch Module Upgrade

by Jeremy Lumby

The last module has been added to the 4500. There were no issues detected during the installation. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

Oct. 8, 2015

Re: MICE Route Server issues?

by Doug McIntyre

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 06:51:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > The route servers operating system, and switches do not use the BGP routes from BIRD, therefore the return traffic goes via static route through IPHouse since they are donating bandwidth to manage the servers/switches externally since the MICE /24 does not exist on the internet. If they were making changes this afternoon, that could explain it. ipHouse did have some routing issues this afternoon during that time frame. We found a lurking issue that had been sitting dormant for 2.5 years that something flapped and it reared its ugly head. As Jeremy said, the route reflectors run BIRD, and BIRD by design doesn't install the routes into the routetable of the OS, although I believe that is an option now-a-days. The RR's are dual interfaced, one interface lives in ipHouse IP address space. The other interface lives on the IXC netblock. All the BGP talkers live on the IXC netblock too, so anything talking BGP to them are just fine. But, the RRs only can talk directly to 206.108.255.0/24, if you are pinging it from beyond your interface to the IXC, it will default route over ipHouse IP space out again, as it hasn't learned the routes it talks, it has to route external back out. Overall, I think the BIRD model works well, but depends on us not having any issues.. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 6, 2015

Re: MICE Route Server issues?

by Mike Horwath

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 06:51:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > The route servers operating system, and switches do not use the BGP > routes from BIRD, therefore the return traffic goes via static route > through IPHouse since they are donating bandwidth to manage the > servers/switches externally since the MICE /24 does not exist on the > internet. If they were making changes this afternoon, that could > explain it. No, that's not the case. I'll let Doug explain. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Oct. 6, 2015

Re: MICE Route Server issues?

by Jeremy Lumby

The route servers operating system, and switches do not use the BGP routes from BIRD, therefore the return traffic goes via static route through IPHouse since they are donating bandwidth to manage the servers/switches externally since the MICE /24 does not exist on the internet. If they were making changes this afternoon, that could explain it. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Anthony Anderberg Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 5:38 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Route Server issues? My internal monitoring (via SmokePing) shows ping packet loss between 15:20 and 16:10 to the MICE route servers. As others have mentioned I don't show any BGP or traffic volume issues, and everything looks OK now. I believe the only change today was adding ports to the Netflix LAG this morning at ~11:15, the last time the MICE route server configuration changed was August 13th. Will continue to look for relevant data points... Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net www.nutelecom.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 4:56 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Route Server issues? Just noticed that the utilization graphs were missing data from this afternoon, however not the graphs from the CNS switch, which I assume is on another netblock. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Anton Kapela Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 4:33 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Route Server issues? Observing same issues here pinging same route severs from any source netblock in AS16842. -Tk > On Oct 5, 2015, at 4:10 PM, James Stahr <stahr(a)MAILBAG.COM> wrote: > > The exchange *seems* fine, but I can't reliably ping the route servers right now. My BGP sessions to them are up and stable, but ICMP isn't operating "normally" - has anything changed? This started at 15:24 CDT today: > > [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.1 PING 206.108.255.1 > (206.108.255.1) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=7.06 ms > > --- 206.108.255.1 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 1 received, 90% packet loss, time 9000ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 7.062/7.062/7.062/0.000 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ > ping -c 10 206.108.255.2 PING 206.108.255.2 (206.108.255.2) 56(84) > bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=7.13 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=6.98 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=6.94 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=7.05 ms > > --- 206.108.255.2 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 4 received, 60% packet loss, time 9001ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 6.942/7.028/7.135/0.093 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ > ping -c 10 206.108.255.52 PING 206.108.255.52 (206.108.255.52) 56(84) > bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=14.5 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=13.6 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=13.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=12.7 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=12.2 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=11.7 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=11.2 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=10 ttl=61 time=11.9 ms > > --- 206.108.255.52 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9002ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 11.289/12.913/14.502/1.052 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion > ~]$ > > > Any new policing policy applied today? I seem to be able to ping normally if I use my 206.108.255.x address, but not reliably from any other address: > > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 > ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 Type > escape sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 > ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source loop1 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 > ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source loop1 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 > ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/2 ms > r-pop-min-1# > > > -James

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: MICE Route Server issues?

by Anthony Anderberg

My internal monitoring (via SmokePing) shows ping packet loss between 15:20 and 16:10 to the MICE route servers. As others have mentioned I don't show any BGP or traffic volume issues, and everything looks OK now. I believe the only change today was adding ports to the Netflix LAG this morning at ~11:15, the last time the MICE route server configuration changed was August 13th. Will continue to look for relevant data points... Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net www.nutelecom.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 4:56 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Route Server issues? Just noticed that the utilization graphs were missing data from this afternoon, however not the graphs from the CNS switch, which I assume is on another netblock. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Anton Kapela Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 4:33 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Route Server issues? Observing same issues here pinging same route severs from any source netblock in AS16842. -Tk > On Oct 5, 2015, at 4:10 PM, James Stahr <stahr(a)MAILBAG.COM> wrote: > > The exchange *seems* fine, but I can't reliably ping the route servers right now. My BGP sessions to them are up and stable, but ICMP isn't operating "normally" - has anything changed? This started at 15:24 CDT today: > > [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.1 PING 206.108.255.1 > (206.108.255.1) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=7.06 ms > > --- 206.108.255.1 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 1 received, 90% packet loss, time 9000ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 7.062/7.062/7.062/0.000 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ > ping -c 10 206.108.255.2 PING 206.108.255.2 (206.108.255.2) 56(84) > bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=7.13 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=6.98 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=6.94 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=7.05 ms > > --- 206.108.255.2 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 4 received, 60% packet loss, time 9001ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 6.942/7.028/7.135/0.093 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ > ping -c 10 206.108.255.52 PING 206.108.255.52 (206.108.255.52) 56(84) > bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=14.5 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=13.6 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=13.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=12.7 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=12.2 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=11.7 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=11.2 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=10 ttl=61 time=11.9 ms > > --- 206.108.255.52 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9002ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 11.289/12.913/14.502/1.052 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion > ~]$ > > > Any new policing policy applied today? I seem to be able to ping normally if I use my 206.108.255.x address, but not reliably from any other address: > > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 > ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 Type > escape sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 > ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source loop1 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 > ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source loop1 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 > ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/2 ms > r-pop-min-1# > > > -James

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: MICE Route Server issues?

by Jeremy Lumby

Just noticed that the utilization graphs were missing data from this afternoon, however not the graphs from the CNS switch, which I assume is on another netblock. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Anton Kapela Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 4:33 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Route Server issues? Observing same issues here pinging same route severs from any source netblock in AS16842. -Tk > On Oct 5, 2015, at 4:10 PM, James Stahr <stahr(a)MAILBAG.COM> wrote: > > The exchange *seems* fine, but I can't reliably ping the route servers right now. My BGP sessions to them are up and stable, but ICMP isn't operating "normally" - has anything changed? This started at 15:24 CDT today: > > [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.1 PING 206.108.255.1 > (206.108.255.1) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=7.06 ms > > --- 206.108.255.1 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 1 received, 90% packet loss, time 9000ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 7.062/7.062/7.062/0.000 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ > ping -c 10 206.108.255.2 PING 206.108.255.2 (206.108.255.2) 56(84) > bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=7.13 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=6.98 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=6.94 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=7.05 ms > > --- 206.108.255.2 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 4 received, 60% packet loss, time 9001ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 6.942/7.028/7.135/0.093 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ > ping -c 10 206.108.255.52 PING 206.108.255.52 (206.108.255.52) 56(84) > bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=14.5 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=13.6 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=13.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=12.7 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=12.2 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=11.7 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=11.2 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=10 ttl=61 time=11.9 ms > > --- 206.108.255.52 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9002ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 11.289/12.913/14.502/1.052 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion > ~]$ > > > Any new policing policy applied today? I seem to be able to ping normally if I use my 206.108.255.x address, but not reliably from any other address: > > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 > ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 Type > escape sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 > ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source loop1 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 > ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source loop1 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 > ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/2 ms > r-pop-min-1# > > > -James

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: MICE Route Server issues?

by Anton Kapela

Observing same issues here pinging same route severs from any source netblock in AS16842. -Tk > On Oct 5, 2015, at 4:10 PM, James Stahr <stahr(a)MAILBAG.COM> wrote: > > The exchange *seems* fine, but I can't reliably ping the route servers right now. My BGP sessions to them are up and stable, but ICMP isn't operating "normally" - has anything changed? This started at 15:24 CDT today: > > [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.1 > PING 206.108.255.1 (206.108.255.1) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=7.06 ms > > --- 206.108.255.1 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 1 received, 90% packet loss, time 9000ms > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 7.062/7.062/7.062/0.000 ms > [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.2 > PING 206.108.255.2 (206.108.255.2) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=7.13 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=6.98 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=6.94 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=7.05 ms > > --- 206.108.255.2 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 4 received, 60% packet loss, time 9001ms > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 6.942/7.028/7.135/0.093 ms > [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.52 > PING 206.108.255.52 (206.108.255.52) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=14.5 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=13.6 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=13.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=12.7 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=12.2 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=11.7 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=11.2 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=10 ttl=61 time=11.9 ms > > --- 206.108.255.52 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9002ms > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 11.289/12.913/14.502/1.052 ms > [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ > > > Any new policing policy applied today? I seem to be able to ping normally if I use my 206.108.255.x address, but not reliably from any other address: > > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source loop1 > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 > ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source loop1 > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 > ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/2 ms > r-pop-min-1# > > > -James

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: MICE Route Server issues?

by Mike Horwath

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 04:10:54PM -0500, James Stahr wrote: > The exchange *seems* fine, but I can't reliably ping the route servers > right now. Is this /24 announced via BGP into the exchange or just over some of the connected members? -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Oct. 5, 2015

MICE Route Server issues?

by James Stahr

The exchange *seems* fine, but I can't reliably ping the route servers right now. My BGP sessions to them are up and stable, but ICMP isn't operating "normally" - has anything changed? This started at 15:24 CDT today: [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.1 PING 206.108.255.1 (206.108.255.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 206.108.255.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=7.06 ms --- 206.108.255.1 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 1 received, 90% packet loss, time 9000ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 7.062/7.062/7.062/0.000 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.2 PING 206.108.255.2 (206.108.255.2) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=7.13 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=6.98 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=6.94 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=7.05 ms --- 206.108.255.2 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 4 received, 60% packet loss, time 9001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 6.942/7.028/7.135/0.093 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.52 PING 206.108.255.52 (206.108.255.52) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=14.5 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=13.6 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=13.0 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=12.7 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=12.2 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=11.7 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=11.2 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=10 ttl=61 time=11.9 ms --- 206.108.255.52 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9002ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 11.289/12.913/14.502/1.052 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ Any new policing policy applied today? I seem to be able to ping normally if I use my 206.108.255.x address, but not reliably from any other address: r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source loop1 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source loop1 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/2 ms r-pop-min-1# -James

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: Netflix Additional ports

by Jeremy Lumby

ae2 Last week ae3 was migrated into AE2 as well -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 2:16 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Netflix Additional ports On 10/05/2015 10:01 AM, Jason Hanke wrote: > Please assign and add the following ports to the Netflix LAG Which Netflix LAG? They have ae2 and ae3. -- Richard

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: Netflix Additional ports

by Richard Laager

On 10/05/2015 10:01 AM, Jason Hanke wrote: > Please assign and add the following ports to the Netflix LAG Which Netflix LAG? They have ae2 and ae3. -- Richard

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: Netflix Additional ports

by Doug McIntyre

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 10:01:32AM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: > Please assign and add the following ports to the Netflix LAG > > xe-0/2/0 > xe-0/2/1 > xe-0/2/2 Sure thing, added 3 more to the bundle. Ready to go when the optics are installed. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 5, 2015

Netflix Additional ports

by Jason Hanke

Please assign and add the following ports to the Netflix LAG xe-0/2/0 xe-0/2/1 xe-0/2/2 Thanks! -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: Juniper Donation

by Mike Hemphill

Jeremy, Thank you! MICE very much appreciates all that you & Minnesota VoIP does for the exchange!!! Best regards, Mike Mike Hemphill General Manager | Cologix, Inc. 511 11th Ave S, Suite 200 | Minneapolis, MN 55415 P: 1+612.333.1922 | M: 1+612.812.5242 mike.hemphill(a)cologix.com -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 3:41 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Juniper Donation I have procured, and will be donating the final expansion module to the 4500 switch. This will max out the 4500 with 10G ports. I plan on installing it on 10/8/2015 around 1PM central time. Based upon the installation of the previous 4500 module, I do not expect any impact on traffic. Could someone who has the appropriate permissions please copy this to the announce list. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: Juniper Donation

by Hannigan, Martin

Yes, ditto. Thank you! Your service is very much appreciated Jeremy! Best, Martin > On Oct 2, 2015, at 19:51, Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)GEEKS.ORG> wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 03:41:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: >> Could someone who has the appropriate permissions please copy this >> to the announce list. > > I did it. > > And thank you so very much! > > -- > Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Oct. 2, 2015

Re: Juniper Donation

by Mike Horwath

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 03:41:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > Could someone who has the appropriate permissions please copy this > to the announce list. I did it. And thank you so very much! -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Oct. 2, 2015

Juniper Donation

by Jeremy Lumby

I have procured, and will be donating the final expansion module to the 4500 switch. This will max out the 4500 with 10G ports. I plan on installing it on 10/8/2015 around 1PM central time. Based upon the installation of the previous 4500 module, I do not expect any impact on traffic. Could someone who has the appropriate permissions please copy this to the announce list. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

Oct. 2, 2015

Re: Upcoming MICE Meeting

by Jeremy Lumby

I am not as particular about the date, however I would suggest moving back to a start time of 3PM like it was several years ago. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Shaun Carlson Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 7:36 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Upcoming MICE Meeting All, We will NOT be having a meeting on 9/16 as originally planned. I will send out a new date in a few days. Please let me know if there is any preference for or against a specific date in October time frame. Thanks! s Shaun Carlson Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 3, 2015