- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

MICE ASN Annual Fee

by Jay Hanke

We need $100 to renew the MICE ASN with ARIN. Please donate... Thanks, Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 7, 2011

Akamai Recovery

by Jeremy Lumby

The Akamai recovery has been completed on all 10 servers. I have re-input the IP info, and they are pingable from the outside world. Jay: Please let Akamai know that it has been completed. Jeremy ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 7, 2011

Re: Akamai Server Issue

by Justin Krejci

On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 17:00 -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> > wrote: > I would be happy to do it tomorrow, just shoot me the link to > the ISO. > > > Thanks, I shot you an email off list with all the instructions. You > might want to burn a couple of disks so it goes faster. > I am going to 511 tomorrow late morning in any case so I can act as a backup in case Jeremy has any problems making it. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 6, 2011

Re: Akamai Server Issue

by Jay Hanke

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > ** > I would be happy to do it tomorrow, just shoot me the link to the ISO. > Thanks, I shot you an email off list with all the instructions. You might want to burn a couple of disks so it goes faster. Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 6, 2011

Re: Akamai Server Issue

by Jeremy Lumby

I would be happy to do it tomorrow, just shoot me the link to the ISO. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2011 4:51 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Akamai Server Issue Akamai was going through their final check on the servers and the software needs to be reloaded on the machines. Any volunteers? You'll need to be able to burn an ISO to a CD and have access to a monitor and keyboard. Jay 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

Oct. 6, 2011

Akamai Server Issue

by Jay Hanke

Akamai was going through their final check on the servers and the software needs to be reloaded on the machines. Any volunteers? You'll need to be able to burn an ISO to a CD and have access to a monitor and keyboard. Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 6, 2011

Re: Akamai BGP

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 02:22:23PM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 02:12:21PM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > >> Can someone look and see if the Akamai BGP sessions came up to the route > >> servers? > > > > I don't see them configured on the route servers.. > > Have some info for them? > > ASN 20940 > .84 ::84 They don't appear to be ready yet for a BGP feed to that IP. $ telnet 69.147.218.84 bgp Trying 69.147.218.84... telnet: connect to address 69.147.218.84: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host $ telnet 2607:fe10:ffff::84 bgp Trying 2607:fe10:ffff::84... telnet: connect to address 2607:fe10:ffff::84: Connection refused telnet: Unable to connect to remote host The route servers have them configured now though. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> -- ipHouse/Goldengate/Bitstream/ProNS -- Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 5, 2011

Re: Akamai BGP

by Jay Hanke

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 02:12:21PM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: >> Can someone look and see if the Akamai BGP sessions came up to the route >> servers? > > I don't see them configured on the route servers.. > Have some info for them? ASN 20940 .84 ::84 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 5, 2011

Re: Akamai BGP

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 02:12:21PM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > Can someone look and see if the Akamai BGP sessions came up to the route > servers? I don't see them configured on the route servers.. Have some info for them? -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> -- ipHouse/Goldengate/Bitstream/ProNS -- Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 5, 2011

Akamai BGP

by Jay Hanke

Can someone look and see if the Akamai BGP sessions came up to the route servers? Thanks, Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 5, 2011

Re: Connection to Sungard: Not really a MICE question...

by Steve Howard

Doug, Thanks, I'll give them a call. Steve On 10/03/2011 11:55 AM, Doug McIntyre wrote: > On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 09:33:01AM -0500, Steve Howard wrote: >> This isn't really a MICE question, but I figure somebody on the list >> would know the answer and I'd prefer to send the business to a MICE member. >> >> I have a customer that is looking to get to the Sungard data center on >> Energy Park Drive. Does anybody know of any reasonably priced ethernet >> connectivity to get there from 511? > I don't know if you've talked to Sungard directly, but they have a POP > in 511 as well. > > ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 5, 2011

Re: MICE-DISCUSS Digest - 1 Oct 2011 to 3 Oct 2011 (#2011-99)

by Anthony Anderberg

Sure enough - 200 responses per second, good troubleshooting guys! [micemn-01 /etc]$ sysctl -d net.inet.icmp.icmplim net.inet.icmp.icmplim: Maximum number of ICMP responses per second [micemn-01 /etc]$ [micemn-01 /etc]$ sysctl net.inet.icmp.icmplim net.inet.icmp.icmplim: 200 [micemn-01 /etc]$ -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:27 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE-DISCUSS Digest - 1 Oct 2011 to 3 Oct 2011 (#2011-99) I do believe that it is something in the OS of the route server. Unfortunately in the Cisco IOS, I can not adjust the rate, however I found that it always drops the 200'th packet. If I do multiple individual pings back to back (with one second or more inbetween them) that repeat 199 times, then there is never any loss. It also explains why I can do the same test to other devices across my MICE connection, and do not drop every 200th packet. Also by being specific to the 200'th packet in a row that tells me that there is not a speed/duplex mismatch, or a cable issue as I had originally worried about (since they would be random, or on a specific time interval, not based on a exact packet number). Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Bradley Urberg Carlson Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:46 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE-DISCUSS Digest - 1 Oct 2011 to 3 Oct 2011 (#2011-99) I've seen that when flood-pinging BSD boxes (but not Linux). If you can throttle the rate down (-i 0.1), rather than flood pinging, then the artifact may go away. > Sending 1000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 69.147.218.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ######################################################################## 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

Oct. 4, 2011

Re: MICE-DISCUSS Digest - 1 Oct 2011 to 3 Oct 2011 (#2011-99)

by Jeremy Lumby

I do believe that it is something in the OS of the route server. Unfortunately in the Cisco IOS, I can not adjust the rate, however I found that it always drops the 200'th packet. If I do multiple individual pings back to back (with one second or more inbetween them) that repeat 199 times, then there is never any loss. It also explains why I can do the same test to other devices across my MICE connection, and do not drop every 200th packet. Also by being specific to the 200'th packet in a row that tells me that there is not a speed/duplex mismatch, or a cable issue as I had originally worried about (since they would be random, or on a specific time interval, not based on a exact packet number). Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Bradley Urberg Carlson Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 9:46 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE-DISCUSS Digest - 1 Oct 2011 to 3 Oct 2011 (#2011-99) I've seen that when flood-pinging BSD boxes (but not Linux). If you can throttle the rate down (-i 0.1), rather than flood pinging, then the artifact may go away. > Sending 1000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 69.147.218.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ######################################################################## 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

Oct. 4, 2011

Re: MICE-DISCUSS Digest - 1 Oct 2011 to 3 Oct 2011 (#2011-99)

by Bradley Urberg Carlson

I've seen that when flood-pinging BSD boxes (but not Linux). If you can throttle the rate down (-i 0.1), rather than flood pinging, then the artifact may go away. > Sending 1000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 69.147.218.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 4, 2011

Re: Pending MICE Turn up status

by Richard Laager

On Thu, 2011-09-29 at 09:27 -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > -DCN (Layer 3 connectivity, no peering) Does anyone have contact information for a "peering coordinator" at DCN? Thanks, Richard ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 4, 2011

Re: Connection to Sungard: Not really a MICE question...

by Jay Hanke

> I don't know if you've talked to Sungard directly, but they have a POP > in 511 as well. I stopped in quite awhile ago to approach them about connecting to MICE. The guy I talked to said it was a corporate decision. If someone knows the right contact please reach out to them. Sungard would be a nice addition to MICE. Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 3, 2011

Re: Connection to Sungard: Not really a MICE question...

by Doug McIntyre

On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 09:33:01AM -0500, Steve Howard wrote: > This isn't really a MICE question, but I figure somebody on the list > would know the answer and I'd prefer to send the business to a MICE member. > > I have a customer that is looking to get to the Sungard data center on > Energy Park Drive. Does anybody know of any reasonably priced ethernet > connectivity to get there from 511? I don't know if you've talked to Sungard directly, but they have a POP in 511 as well. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> -- ipHouse/Goldengate/Bitstream/ProNS -- Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 3, 2011

Re: Speed or duplex mismatch?

by Jeremy Lumby

I agree, everything looks good on the interfaces. There is a good chance I am just being too picky. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Anthony Anderberg Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 10:16 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Speed or duplex mismatch? I don't see anything obvious on the main switch or route server, Owen's theory seems like a good hypothesis and might be a good place to start. Mainswitch-ge-0/0/11 MAC statistics: Receive Transmit Total octets 47973148598 48576691195 Total packets 355364271 338323850 Unicast packets 355185413 282081737 Broadcast packets 102492 1488675 Multicast packets 76366 54753438 CRC/Align errors 0 0 FIFO errors 0 0 MAC control frames 0 0 MAC pause frames 0 0 Oversized frames 0 Jabber frames 0 Fragment frames 0 Code violations 0 Autonegotiation information: Negotiation status: Complete Link partner: Link mode: Full-duplex, Flow control: Symmetric/Asymmetric, Remote fault: OK, Link partner Speed: 1000 Mbps Local resolution: Flow control: Symmetric, Remote fault: Link OK Mainswitch-ge-0/0/1 MAC statistics: Receive Transmit Total octets 180901973 5461408588 Total packets 1389854 57880557 Unicast packets 1353384 1457681 Broadcast packets 0 1591637 Multicast packets 36470 54831239 CRC/Align errors 0 0 FIFO errors 0 0 MAC control frames 0 0 MAC pause frames 0 0 Oversized frames 0 Jabber frames 0 Fragment frames 0 Code violations 0 Autonegotiation information: Negotiation status: Complete Link partner: Link mode: Full-duplex, Flow control: Symmetric/Asymmetric, Remote fault: OK, Link partner Speed: 1000 Mbps Local resolution: Flow control: Symmetric, Remote fault: Link OK RouterServer1-bce1 ... media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex,flowcontrol,rxpause,txpause>) status: active ######################################################################## 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

Oct. 3, 2011

Re: Speed or duplex mismatch?

by Jeremy Lumby

I agree that the regular period of the drop does lead me to believe that it is not a physical issue. I was wondering it it might be the autodetect interval of the Juniper switch, and if the MICE route server has a hardcoded speed/duplex if that might cause it at this regular loss frequency. I was able to alternate this test between the HE router at 69.147.218.52 and the MICE route servers several times. The HE router was always perfect, and the MICE route server was 0.5% lossy every time. Is anyone available to check the Juniper to see if there are any errors on the ports feeding the route servers? -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 9:59 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Speed or duplex mismatch? Some flavors of Cisco will drop inbound ICMP if they feel busy. When this happens, they do it silently and do not count errors, etc. I don't know if the NPE G2 is subject to this proclivity or not and I don't know how busy your router feels when you are doing this, but, the particularly regular pattern to the packet loss leads me to believe it is likely a CPU spike in the Cisco for some scheduled periodic task causing it to fail to process the inbound ICMP Echo Reply. (Remember, ICMP to the router is punted to the slow-path CPU) Owen On Oct 3, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > This weekend I did some equipment upgrades, and while my BGP session re-established without a problem, I decided to ping the route servers to test connectivity. I found that both route servers exhibited about a 0.5% loss. I checked my interface counters, and I am not getting any errors, as well as I tried pinging a few other MICE members' routers and did not experience any loss. I am wondering if there is a speed/duplex mismatch between the route servers and the switch, or if there might be something running on the route servers that is intentionally dropping packets as some form of DoS protection. The following ping was performed from my Cisco 7206VXR that is directly connected to MICE via the gig port that is built into the G2 processor. > > 511Edge01#ping 69.147.218.1 repeat 1000 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 1000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 69.147.218.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. > Success rate is 99 percent (995/1000), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/4 > ms > > Jeremy Lumby > Minnesota VoIP > 9217 17th Ave S > Suite 216 > Bloomington, MN 55425 > Main: 612-355-7740 > Direct: 612-392-6814 > E-Fax: 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 ######################################################################## 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

Oct. 3, 2011

Re: Speed or duplex mismatch?

by Anthony Anderberg

I don't see anything obvious on the main switch or route server, Owen's theory seems like a good hypothesis and might be a good place to start. Mainswitch-ge-0/0/11 MAC statistics: Receive Transmit Total octets 47973148598 48576691195 Total packets 355364271 338323850 Unicast packets 355185413 282081737 Broadcast packets 102492 1488675 Multicast packets 76366 54753438 CRC/Align errors 0 0 FIFO errors 0 0 MAC control frames 0 0 MAC pause frames 0 0 Oversized frames 0 Jabber frames 0 Fragment frames 0 Code violations 0 Autonegotiation information: Negotiation status: Complete Link partner: Link mode: Full-duplex, Flow control: Symmetric/Asymmetric, Remote fault: OK, Link partner Speed: 1000 Mbps Local resolution: Flow control: Symmetric, Remote fault: Link OK Mainswitch-ge-0/0/1 MAC statistics: Receive Transmit Total octets 180901973 5461408588 Total packets 1389854 57880557 Unicast packets 1353384 1457681 Broadcast packets 0 1591637 Multicast packets 36470 54831239 CRC/Align errors 0 0 FIFO errors 0 0 MAC control frames 0 0 MAC pause frames 0 0 Oversized frames 0 Jabber frames 0 Fragment frames 0 Code violations 0 Autonegotiation information: Negotiation status: Complete Link partner: Link mode: Full-duplex, Flow control: Symmetric/Asymmetric, Remote fault: OK, Link partner Speed: 1000 Mbps Local resolution: Flow control: Symmetric, Remote fault: Link OK RouterServer1-bce1 ... media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex,flowcontrol,rxpause,txpause>) status: active ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 3, 2011

Re: Speed or duplex mismatch?

by Jay Hanke

> 511Edge01#ping 69.147.218.1 repeat 1000 >From the Juniper side, they look ok: jhanke@MICE-SW1> show interfaces ge-0/0/1 media Physical interface: ge-0/0/1, Enabled, Physical link is Up Interface index: 131, SNMP ifIndex: 506 Link-level type: Ethernet, MTU: 1514, Speed: Auto, Duplex: Auto, BPDU Error: None, MAC-REWRITE Error: None, Loopback: Disabled, Source filtering: Disabled, Flow control: Enabled, Auto-negotiation: Enabled, Remote fault: Online Device flags : Present Running Interface flags: SNMP-Traps Internal: 0x0 Link flags : None CoS queues : 8 supported, 8 maximum usable queues Current address: 00:19:e2:54:f3:41, Hardware address: 00:19:e2:54:f3:41 Last flapped : 2011-08-11 07:05:18 CDT (7w4d 03:01 ago) Input rate : 0 bps (0 pps) Output rate : 8936 bps (12 pps) Active alarms : None Active defects : None MAC statistics: Input bytes: 180903945, Input packets: 1389879, Output bytes: 5461565301, Output packets: 57882316 Autonegotiation information: Negotiation status: Complete Link partner: Link mode: Full-duplex, Flow control: Symmetric/Asymmetric, Remote fault: OK, Link partner Speed: 1000 Mbps Local resolution: Flow control: Symmetric, Remote fault: Link OK {master:0} jhanke@MICE-SW1> show interfaces ge-0/0/2 media Physical interface: ge-0/0/2, Enabled, Physical link is Up Interface index: 132, SNMP ifIndex: 508 Link-level type: Ethernet, MTU: 1514, Speed: Auto, Duplex: Auto, BPDU Error: None, MAC-REWRITE Error: None, Loopback: Disabled, Source filtering: Disabled, Flow control: Enabled, Auto-negotiation: Enabled, Remote fault: Online Device flags : Present Running Interface flags: SNMP-Traps Internal: 0x0 Link flags : None CoS queues : 8 supported, 8 maximum usable queues Current address: 00:19:e2:54:f3:42, Hardware address: 00:19:e2:54:f3:42 Last flapped : 2011-08-11 07:15:43 CDT (7w4d 02:51 ago) Input rate : 0 bps (0 pps) Output rate : 13984 bps (20 pps) Active alarms : None Active defects : None MAC statistics: Input bytes: 149428264, Input packets: 1093514, Output bytes: 5434250653, Output packets: 57716385 Autonegotiation information: Negotiation status: Complete Link partner: Link mode: Full-duplex, Flow control: Symmetric/Asymmetric, Remote fault: OK, Link partner Speed: 1000 Mbps Local resolution: Flow control: Symmetric, Remote fault: Link OK {master:0} jhanke@MICE-SW1> Jay Hanke CTO, CCIE #19093 Mankato Networks LLC 619 S Front St Mankato, MN 56001-3838 Google 530-618-2398 jayhanke(a)mankatonetworks.net http://www.mankatonetworks.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. 3, 2011

Re: Connection to Sungard: Not really a MICE question...

by Steve Howard

Dan, I sent an e-mail to FWR, but didn't get a response back... :-( Steve On 10/03/2011 09:48 AM, Dan Boehlke wrote: > Steve, > > Have they talked with FWR? > > -- > Dan Boehlke > Sr. Network Engineer > TIES Technical Services > dan.boehlke(a)ties.k12.mn.us > 651-999-6213 > www.ties.k12.mn.us > > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Steve Howard wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> This isn't really a MICE question, but I figure somebody on the list >> would know the answer and I'd prefer to send the business to a MICE member. >> >> I have a customer that is looking to get to the Sungard data center on >> Energy Park Drive. Does anybody know of any reasonably priced ethernet >> connectivity to get there from 511? >> >> Thanks, >> Steve >> >> ######################################################################## >> >> 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

Oct. 3, 2011

Re: Speed or duplex mismatch?

by Owen DeLong

Some flavors of Cisco will drop inbound ICMP if they feel busy. When this happens, they do it silently and do not count errors, etc. I don't know if the NPE G2 is subject to this proclivity or not and I don't know how busy your router feels when you are doing this, but, the particularly regular pattern to the packet loss leads me to believe it is likely a CPU spike in the Cisco for some scheduled periodic task causing it to fail to process the inbound ICMP Echo Reply. (Remember, ICMP to the router is punted to the slow-path CPU) Owen On Oct 3, 2011, at 7:47 AM, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > This weekend I did some equipment upgrades, and while my BGP session re-established without a problem, I decided to ping the route servers to test connectivity. I found that both route servers exhibited about a 0.5% loss. I checked my interface counters, and I am not getting any errors, as well as I tried pinging a few other MICE members' routers and did not experience any loss. I am wondering if there is a speed/duplex mismatch between the route servers and the switch, or if there might be something running on the route servers that is intentionally dropping packets as some form of DoS protection. The following ping was performed from my Cisco 7206VXR that is directly connected to MICE via the gig port that is built into the G2 processor. > > 511Edge01#ping 69.147.218.1 repeat 1000 > > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 1000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 69.147.218.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. > Success rate is 99 percent (995/1000), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/4 ms > > Jeremy Lumby > Minnesota VoIP > 9217 17th Ave S > Suite 216 > Bloomington, MN 55425 > Main: 612-355-7740 > Direct: 612-392-6814 > E-Fax: 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 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 3, 2011

Re: Connection to Sungard: Not really a MICE question...

by Dan Boehlke

Steve, Have they talked with FWR? -- Dan Boehlke Sr. Network Engineer TIES Technical Services dan.boehlke(a)ties.k12.mn.us 651-999-6213 www.ties.k12.mn.us On Oct 3, 2011, at 9:33 AM, Steve Howard wrote: > Hello, > > This isn't really a MICE question, but I figure somebody on the list > would know the answer and I'd prefer to send the business to a MICE member. > > I have a customer that is looking to get to the Sungard data center on > Energy Park Drive. Does anybody know of any reasonably priced ethernet > connectivity to get there from 511? > > Thanks, > Steve > > ######################################################################## > > 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

Oct. 3, 2011

Speed or duplex mismatch?

by Jeremy Lumby

This weekend I did some equipment upgrades, and while my BGP session re-established without a problem, I decided to ping the route servers to test connectivity. I found that both route servers exhibited about a 0.5% loss. I checked my interface counters, and I am not getting any errors, as well as I tried pinging a few other MICE members' routers and did not experience any loss. I am wondering if there is a speed/duplex mismatch between the route servers and the switch, or if there might be something running on the route servers that is intentionally dropping packets as some form of DoS protection. The following ping was performed from my Cisco 7206VXR that is directly connected to MICE via the gig port that is built into the G2 processor. 511Edge01#ping 69.147.218.1 repeat 1000 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 1000, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 69.147.218.1, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Success rate is 99 percent (995/1000), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/4 ms Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 Direct: 612-392-6814 E-Fax: 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

Oct. 3, 2011