- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

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

Re: Upcoming MICE Meeting

by Hannigan, Martin

Not conflicting with NANOG or the ICANN meeting would be nice. I’d like to be able to make it for once! :-) > On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:35 AM, Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson(a)ARVIG.COM> wrote: > > 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 <mailto:shaun.carlson@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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…>

Sept. 3, 2015

Upcoming MICE Meeting

by Shaun Carlson

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

Sept. 3, 2015

Are there any public bwctl servers within MICE?

by Tim Peiffer

Other than the University of Minnesota, are there any unregistered publicly reachable bwctl servers within MICE in specific, or MInnesota in general ? I would like to do speed measurement across CenturyLink DSL, Comcast Cable and a few other residential networks. Tim Peiffer -- Tim Peiffer Network Support Engineer Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota/NorthernLights GigaPOP +1 612 626-7884 (desk)

Sept. 1, 2015

PSA: Level3/TWTC

by Mike Horwath

Nice outage: http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2015-August/078610.html eewps! Affecting people I know and going on 4 hours long. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Aug. 27, 2015

Re: Level3?

by John Unger

Patrick.carroll(a)level3.com 312-805-8830 cell 312-895-8421 desk John -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Bil MacLeslie Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 2:21 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Level3? On 8/26/15 2:14 PM, John Unger wrote: > We also buy Level3 here in Minneapolis and Milwaukee markets. Good > products good support... Can be a bit high priced at times... We buy > through the wholesale group (Chicago) and get better pricing. Let us > know if we can help... > > John John, Do you have a contact in the wholesale group I can reach out to? Bil -- Bil K. MacLeslie | TGWGTD | ipHouse | www.ipHouse.com Office: 612-337-6337 | Direct: 612-337-6206 | Cell: 612-618-1218

Aug. 26, 2015

Re: Level3?

by Bil MacLeslie

On 8/26/15 2:14 PM, John Unger wrote: > We also buy Level3 here in Minneapolis and Milwaukee markets. Good > products good support... Can be a bit high priced at times... We buy > through the wholesale group (Chicago) and get better pricing. Let us > know if we can help... > > John John, Do you have a contact in the wholesale group I can reach out to? Bil -- Bil K. MacLeslie | TGWGTD | ipHouse | www.ipHouse.com Office: 612-337-6337 | Direct: 612-337-6206 | Cell: 612-618-1218

Aug. 26, 2015

Re: Level3?

by John Unger

We also buy Level3 here in Minneapolis and Milwaukee markets. Good products good support... Can be a bit high priced at times... We buy through the wholesale group (Chicago) and get better pricing. Let us know if we can help... John -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Howard Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 11:29 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Level3? Doug, We buy Level3 but will probably phase them out due to cost that is significantly higher than the marketplace. From a technical perspective, they have been an outstanding provider. If you want to send me a few destinations I can do a few traceroutes and send you the results. Steve On 08/19/2015 02:44 PM, Doug McIntyre wrote: > Does anybody buy Level3 transit in the Minneapolis area? > > We're looking for certain paths out of them that have been hotpoints > in the past, so looking to run some traceroutes through their transit > in Minneapolis to a few points. > > Thanks! >

Aug. 26, 2015

Re: Number of prefixes received exceeds limit - HE IPv6 routes via the route servers?

by James Stahr

On 08/20/2015 4:00 PM, David Farmer wrote: > Sorry guys that was us, or one of our participants. > > They made some changes about an hour ago, and announced the whole IPv6 > table to us. We had a prefix list configured, but it seems to be > empty now, not sure how or when that happened. > Ah, that explains it. I found the other missing piece in our configuration and Rob was right about filters. We've got an explicit deny against ^6939_ from the route server because of our bilateral peering with HE and that's keeping our IPv6 routes from the route server down to 45 and 49 routes respectively so setting a limit of 150 is within reason. But the routes you sent wouldn't have matched the filter, hence the prefix limit was exceeded. Everyone else must have a 13K+ limit and therefor didn't notice the additional paths being injected. Or folks haven't put a prefix-limit on their IPv6 neighbors because if this was a full table, that's nearly 23K routes... -James > We're upgrading to ASRs soon, and they have a check for empty prefix > lists. > > On 8/20/15 15:12 , James Stahr wrote: >> Is someone just start re-advertising HE via the route server or did we >> just configure today a session for HE to the route server? It was my >> impression that they only did bilateral peering. >> >> Aug 20 14:04:01.902 CDT: %BGP-4-MAXPFX: Number of prefixes received from >> 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 (afi 1) reaches 143, max 150 >> Aug 20 14:04:01.908 CDT: %BGP-3-MAXPFXEXCEED: Number of prefixes >> received from 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 (afi 1): 151 exceeds limit 150 >> >> Our session is currently down and will remain down. When the session >> was up, we saw all of the paths start with 6939. >> >> James Stahr >> CDW > >

Aug. 20, 2015

Re: Number of prefixes received exceeds limit - HE IPv6 routes via the route servers?

by David Farmer

Sorry guys that was us, or one of our participants. They made some changes about an hour ago, and announced the whole IPv6 table to us. We had a prefix list configured, but it seems to be empty now, not sure how or when that happened. We're upgrading to ASRs soon, and they have a check for empty prefix lists. On 8/20/15 15:12 , James Stahr wrote: > Is someone just start re-advertising HE via the route server or did we > just configure today a session for HE to the route server? It was my > impression that they only did bilateral peering. > > Aug 20 14:04:01.902 CDT: %BGP-4-MAXPFX: Number of prefixes received from > 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 (afi 1) reaches 143, max 150 > Aug 20 14:04:01.908 CDT: %BGP-3-MAXPFXEXCEED: Number of prefixes > received from 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 (afi 1): 151 exceeds limit 150 > > Our session is currently down and will remain down. When the session > was up, we saw all of the paths start with 6939. > > James Stahr > CDW -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer(a)umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================

Aug. 20, 2015

Re: Number of prefixes received exceeds limit - HE IPv6 routes via the route servers?

by Rob Mosher

This is not correct. We only advertise our customer routes to the route servers. We currently send 11764 routes, and have not made any recent changes. -- Rob Mosher Senior Network and Software Engineer Hurricane Electric / AS6939 On 8/20/2015 4:18 PM, Doug McIntyre wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 03:12:10PM -0500, James Stahr wrote: >> Is someone just start re-advertising HE via the route server or did we just >> configure today a session for HE to the route server? It was my impression >> that they only did bilateral peering. > > HE has always given transit of the IPv6 full table back to the route servers at MICE. > > I had to increase the max prefixes they generated back in Feb of 2013, so this > shouldn't be new.. >

Aug. 20, 2015