- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Reid Fishler

I believe it has been paid now? Reid On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Does anyone know the status of the service contract renewal post UG15? I > feel strongly that the switching table issue should be run past Juniper > tech support. > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of > Doug McIntyre > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 4:30 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Packet loss across the exchange > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 04:19:07PM -0600, Steve Howard wrote: > > Perhaps we need another > clear ethernet-switching table > > I was able to get in there and do that.. > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Richard Laager

On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 16:55 -0600, Doug McIntyre wrote: > It doesn't look like Anthony applied the controls onto the leaf > switches, like Mankato Networks', that is currently not applied. 100 Mbps is a lot of broadcast traffic. It seems to me that it should be safe to apply this limit to ports facing remote switches. -- Richard

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Doug McIntyre

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 04:52:15PM -0600, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > Only suggestion would be to make the storm control limits consistent (i.e.: Juniper == 10% of 1g port right now, Cisco = 20%) > > Would be interested to see if same (or similar) config is on the main MICE switch ports facing the leaf switches. Per the discussion at the last member meeting about how the treat the leaf switches (as a member connection), would seem appropriate to have these limits there too (and hope that similar config is in place downstream on member run leaf switches too). It doesn't look like Anthony applied the controls onto the leaf switches, like Mankato Networks', that is currently not applied. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Jeremy Lumby

Does anyone know the status of the service contract renewal post UG15? I feel strongly that the switching table issue should be run past Juniper tech support. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 4:30 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Packet loss across the exchange On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 04:19:07PM -0600, Steve Howard wrote: > Perhaps we need another clear ethernet-switching table I was able to get in there and do that.. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Andrew Hoyos

> On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:39 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > The config is listed here: > http://micemn.net/technical.html <http://micemn.net/technical.html> Ahh, cool. Didn’t realize this was out there now. This looks totally sane and awesome, and what would be expected. Only suggestion would be to make the storm control limits consistent (i.e.: Juniper == 10% of 1g port right now, Cisco = 20%) Would be interested to see if same (or similar) config is on the main MICE switch ports facing the leaf switches. Per the discussion at the last member meeting about how the treat the leaf switches (as a member connection), would seem appropriate to have these limits there too (and hope that similar config is in place downstream on member run leaf switches too). -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Richard Laager

On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 16:24 -0600, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > I thought some sort of loop detection / storm control was configured > recently? Do we need to revisit that? Seems like shutting down a port > (even if a leaf node) at 10% broadcast limit would be better than > effecting the whole exchange. With proper config, this shouldn’t be > possible (or at least the effects minimized to a single port). The config is listed here: http://micemn.net/technical.html Specifically: set ethernet-switching-options storm-control interface X/X/X bandwidth 100000 - and on Cisco - storm-control broadcast level 20.00 I can't say personally whether that's actually applied, but I believe that's been completed. Maybe it wasn't applied to the ports facing remote switches. Can anyone with access to the switches comment on that? I'm not sure off the top of my head what level of traffic these numbers represent. -- Richard

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Larry Patterson

I agree. We all need to make efforts to improve the stability of the exchange. This is causing Atomic issues with reliability and we are considering bypassing the exchange for our critical traffic. ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)GMAIL.COM> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 4:24 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Packet loss across the exchange I thought some sort of loop detection / storm control was configured recently? Do we need to revisit that? Seems like shutting down a port (even if a leaf node) at 10% broadcast limit would be better than effecting the whole exchange. With proper config, this shouldn't be possible (or at least the effects minimized to a single port). I'd be happy to volunteer time/join a team to help accomplish. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com> Larry Patterson CTO ---- Atomic Data // Safe. Simple. Smart.(tm) 615 North 3rd Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 Main // 612.466.2000 Direct // 612.466.2080 Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/AtomicDataCenters> // Twitter<http://twitter.com/AtomicData> // LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/atomic-data> On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:17 PM, Levi Pederson <levipederson(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET<mailto:levipederson@MANKATONETWORKS.NET>> wrote: All, We're shifting some traffic onto our 10Gig link, and accidentally created an L2 Loop within the Exchange. We've since rectified it. Thank you, Levi Pederson Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net<mailto:levipederson@mankatonetworks.net> [http://www.mankatonetworks.com/images/mn_logo_email.png] On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: Just wondering if others are seeing packet loss across the exchange that just started Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211<tel:612-355-7740%20x211> Direct: 612-392-6814<tel:612-392-6814> EFax: 952-873-7425<tel:952-873-7425> jlumby(a)mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com> ________________________________ 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

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Jeremy Lumby

Something is still wrong with the exchange. I wonder if the loop tripped off the forwarding issue. There is no reason for there to be hundreds of megs of traffic hitting the route servers From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Levi Pederson Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 4:18 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Packet loss across the exchange All, We're shifting some traffic onto our 10Gig link, and accidentally created an L2 Loop within the Exchange. We've since rectified it. Thank you, Levi Pederson Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: Just wondering if others are seeing packet loss across the exchange that just started 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 To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Doug McIntyre

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 04:19:07PM -0600, Steve Howard wrote: > Perhaps we need another clear ethernet-switching table I was able to get in there and do that.. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Andrew Hoyos

I thought some sort of loop detection / storm control was configured recently? Do we need to revisit that? Seems like shutting down a port (even if a leaf node) at 10% broadcast limit would be better than effecting the whole exchange. With proper config, this shouldn’t be possible (or at least the effects minimized to a single port). I’d be happy to volunteer time/join a team to help accomplish. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Jan 30, 2015, at 4:17 PM, Levi Pederson <levipederson(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET> wrote: > > All, > > We're shifting some traffic onto our 10Gig link, and accidentally created an L2 Loop within the Exchange. We've since rectified it. > > Thank you, > > > Levi Pederson > Mankato Networks LLC > cell | 612.481.0769 > work | 612.787.7392 > levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net <mailto:levipederson@mankatonetworks.net> > > > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com <mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: > Just wondering if others are seeing packet loss across the exchange that just started > > Jeremy Lumby > Minnesota VoIP > 9217 17th Ave S > Suite 216 > Bloomington, MN 55425 > Main: 612-355-7740 x211 <tel:612-355-7740%20x211> > Direct: 612-392-6814 <tel:612-392-6814> > EFax: 952-873-7425 <tel:952-873-7425> > jlumby(a)mnvoip.com <mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com> > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1>

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Steve Howard

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Levi Pederson

All, We're shifting some traffic onto our 10Gig link, and accidentally created an L2 Loop within the Exchange. We've since rectified it. Thank you, *Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Just wondering if others are seeing packet loss across the exchange that > just started > > 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 >

Jan. 30, 2015

Re: Packet loss across the exchange

by Matthew Beckwell

Indeed...seeing it here as well. BGP sessions are bouncing. *Matthew Beckwell* - Director of Network Operations Advanced Integrated Technologies Technical Support: 1-800-300-5408 Office: 1-952-829-5511 x204 E-Mail: matthewb(a)aitech.net On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Just wondering if others are seeing packet loss across the exchange that > just started > > 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 >

Jan. 30, 2015

Packet loss across the exchange

by Jeremy Lumby

Just wondering if others are seeing packet loss across the exchange that just started 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

Jan. 30, 2015

Google Maintenance

by Jeremy Lumby

I just wanted to let everyone know that Google's maintenance is complete, and traffic will be returning to normal shortly. Originally the upgrade was not going to support IPv6, however extra effort was put into the upgrade so that IPv6 is supported immediately. Some members may have read that Google's peering policy does not allow bi-lateral peering, however that is not the case with their connection to MICE. MICE members can request to bi-laterally peer with them. If for some reason you are having an issue getting peering(a)google.com to setup a bi-lateral BGP session, shoot me an off list email, and I can get you in touch with people that are familiar with the differences in their MICE connection. 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

Jan. 28, 2015

Acentek Port Upgrade

by Jason Hanke

Acentek is moving from a GE allocation on the Mankato Networks Remote switch to a 10G port on the primary switch. The new assignment is Main Switch xe-0/0/30. Please verify the assignment and update website and cacti. 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

Jan. 27, 2015

WiscNet/AS2381 maintenance 2015-01-21 6:45am

by Chris Wopat

At approximately 6:45am tomorrow morning, WiscNet will be performing a software upgrade on a router which will cause peers to briefly go down. AS2381 206.108.255.125 2001:504:27:0:0:094d::1 Cheers, -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Jan. 20, 2015

Google Maintenance

by Jeremy Lumby

Just to let everyone know, tomorrow afternoon Google will be conducting an upgrade that will disrupt their traffic to the exchange, and could last up to a couple days.

Jan. 20, 2015

Land o' Lakes (AS14161)

by Richard Laager

At the MICE meeting on Wednesday, there was someone attending from AS14161. Are you on this list (or one of the people I BCC'ed)? I believe you said you were connected to MICE, but not exchanging any traffic yet. If so, I'd like to update the records, as I don't have you on the participants page: http://micemn.net/participants.html Are you connected directly, or to a remote switch? What's your IP, peering contact, etc.? If I've misunderstood your status and you're not yet connected, then we don't need to do anything at this time. We'll get all the details figured out as part of the connection process. -- Richard

Jan. 17, 2015

Re: UG 15 Minutes

by Hannigan, Martin

It would be useful to have the comments and agreements that we should hold a meeting with the data centers who want to host remotes to get their views on both the method of connecting and the vote issue. Thanks for taking notes and being expedient in distribution. Best, -M< On Jan 14, 2015, at 8:05 PM, Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson(a)ARVIG.COM> wrote: > <MICE UG 15 - Minutes.pdf>

Jan. 15, 2015

UG 15 Minutes

by Shaun Carlson

Please see attached, let me know of any corrections. s *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

Jan. 15, 2015

Re: MICE UG 15 Agenda

by Koch, Andrew

Service: Webex (www.webex.com) Meeting Number: 191 022 802 Meeting Password: UG14is4Me! Meeting URL: http://bit.ly/1xYUPRq > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of > Derek Poehls > Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 16:05 > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE UG 15 Agenda > > Can someone please forward me the weber details? Doesn’t look like I ever > got the appointment request. > > Thanks! > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Derek Poehls > NOC Supervisor/Senior Network Engineer > (218) 284-5775 > > > > From: Chase Rydberg <chase(a)MDUETHERNET.COM> > Reply-To: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 4:01 PM > To: "MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET" <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE UG 15 Agenda > > > I'm noticing the same. > > > Chase > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Not sure if anyone is watching the chat on WebEx, but the audio on > WebEx and call in # is basically unintelligible. > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com > > > > > On Jan 13, 2015, at 2:21 PM, Shaun Carlson > <shaun.carlson(a)ARVIG.COM> wrote: > > All, > > Please find the attached MICE UG 15 Agenda with requested > updates. > > See you all tomorrow! > > 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 > > <MICE UG 15 - Agenda.pdf> > > > > ________________________________ > > 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

Jan. 14, 2015

Re: MICE UG 15 Agenda

by Hannigan, Martin

Same here, not usable. On Jan 14, 2015, at 5:02 PM, Chris Wopat <wopat(a)WISCNET.NET> wrote: > On 01/14/2015 04:00 PM, Andrew Hoyos wrote: >> Not sure if anyone is watching the chat on WebEx, but the audio on WebEx >> and call in # is basically unintelligible. > > I am also experiencing this. > > -- > Chris Wopat > Network Engineer, WiscNet > wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Jan. 14, 2015

Re: MICE UG 15 Agenda

by Derek Poehls

Can someone please forward me the weber details? Doesn’t look like I ever got the appointment request. Thanks! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Derek Poehls NOC Supervisor/Senior Network Engineer (218) 284-5775 From: Chase Rydberg <chase(a)MDUETHERNET.COM<mailto:chase@MDUETHERNET.COM>> Reply-To: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 4:01 PM 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: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE UG 15 Agenda I'm noticing the same. Chase On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>> wrote: Not sure if anyone is watching the chat on WebEx, but the audio on WebEx and call in # is basically unintelligible. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com> On Jan 13, 2015, at 2:21 PM, Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson(a)ARVIG.COM<mailto:shaun.carlson@ARVIG.COM>> wrote: All, Please find the attached MICE UG 15 Agenda with requested updates. See you all tomorrow! 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 <MICE UG 15 - Agenda.pdf> ________________________________ 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

Jan. 14, 2015

Re: MICE UG 15 Agenda

by Chris Wopat

On 01/14/2015 04:00 PM, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > Not sure if anyone is watching the chat on WebEx, but the audio on WebEx > and call in # is basically unintelligible. I am also experiencing this. -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Jan. 14, 2015