- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Doug McIntyre

Yes, but I'll go do it again. That part of the config hasn't been changed since initial setup. On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 01:01:00PM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: >Has someone HUP’d it, yet? > >Frank > >From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos >Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:54 PM >To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th > >Same here. Perhaps the BFD daemon on rs2 needs to be HUP’d to pick up values in config file? > > > Detect Transmit >Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier >2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 Up xe-0/1/0.0 1.500 0.500 3 > Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 > Session up time 2w1d 16:53:02, previous down time 00:00:00 > Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None > Remote state Up, version 1 > Session type: Single hop BFD > Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 > Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 > Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 > Remote min TX interval 0.500, min RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 > Local discriminator 19, remote discriminator 2630753610 > Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 > > Detect Transmit >Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier >2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 Up xe-0/1/0.0 2.500 0.500 3 > Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 > Session up time 2w1d 16:52:42, previous down time 00:00:00 > Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None > Remote state Up, version 1 > Session type: Single hop BFD > Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 > Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 > Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 > Remote min TX interval 0.100, min RX interval 0.010, multiplier 5 > Local discriminator 20, remote discriminator 3118078092 > Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 > > > > > > >On Apr 27, 2021, at 12:27 PM, Justin Krejci <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM<mailto:JKrejci@USINTERNET.COM>> wrote: > >We are not getting identical BFD timers or multiplier values from RS1 and RS2. > >(added blank lines for readability) >usi-cr02-mpls#show bfd peers bfd interface ethernet24/1 detail | i ^Peer|^Received|^TxI >Peer Addr 206.108.255.1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up >TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 >Peer Addr 206.108.255.2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up >TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 >Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up >TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 >Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up >TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 > > > > >________________________________ >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

April 30, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Frank Bulk

Has someone HUP’d it, yet? Frank From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:54 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th Same here. Perhaps the BFD daemon on rs2 needs to be HUP’d to pick up values in config file? Detect Transmit Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 Up xe-0/1/0.0 1.500 0.500 3 Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Session up time 2w1d 16:53:02, previous down time 00:00:00 Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None Remote state Up, version 1 Session type: Single hop BFD Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Remote min TX interval 0.500, min RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Local discriminator 19, remote discriminator 2630753610 Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 Detect Transmit Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 Up xe-0/1/0.0 2.500 0.500 3 Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Session up time 2w1d 16:52:42, previous down time 00:00:00 Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None Remote state Up, version 1 Session type: Single hop BFD Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Remote min TX interval 0.100, min RX interval 0.010, multiplier 5 Local discriminator 20, remote discriminator 3118078092 Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 On Apr 27, 2021, at 12:27 PM, Justin Krejci <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM<mailto:JKrejci@USINTERNET.COM>> wrote: We are not getting identical BFD timers or multiplier values from RS1 and RS2. (added blank lines for readability) usi-cr02-mpls#show bfd peers bfd interface ethernet24/1 detail | i ^Peer|^Received|^TxI Peer Addr 206.108.255.1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 Peer Addr 206.108.255.2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 ________________________________ 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

April 30, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Andrew Hoyos

Same here. Perhaps the BFD daemon on rs2 needs to be HUP’d to pick up values in config file? Detect Transmit Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 Up xe-0/1/0.0 1.500 0.500 3 Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Session up time 2w1d 16:53:02, previous down time 00:00:00 Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None Remote state Up, version 1 Session type: Single hop BFD Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Remote min TX interval 0.500, min RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Local discriminator 19, remote discriminator 2630753610 Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 Detect Transmit Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 Up xe-0/1/0.0 2.500 0.500 3 Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Session up time 2w1d 16:52:42, previous down time 00:00:00 Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None Remote state Up, version 1 Session type: Single hop BFD Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Remote min TX interval 0.100, min RX interval 0.010, multiplier 5 Local discriminator 20, remote discriminator 3118078092 Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 > On Apr 27, 2021, at 12:27 PM, Justin Krejci <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM> wrote: > > We are not getting identical BFD timers or multiplier values from RS1 and RS2. > > (added blank lines for readability) > usi-cr02-mpls#show bfd peers bfd interface ethernet24/1 detail | i ^Peer|^Received|^TxI > > Peer Addr 206.108.255.1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up > TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 > Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 > > Peer Addr 206.108.255.2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up > TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 > Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 > > Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up > TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 > Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 > > Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up > TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 > Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 > > > > > > > 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>

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 05:27:43PM +0000, Justin Krejci wrote: >We are not getting identical BFD timers or multiplier values from RS1 and RS2. I posted the configs directly out of the files earlier. I do see my sessions have different "Detect Time" for the same config, but Transmit Interval is the same. Perhaps the CPE negotiates a second link differently to provide diversity some how. Detect Transmit Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier 206.108.255.1 Up ge-1/3/9.0 1.500 0.500 3 206.108.255.2 Up ge-1/3/9.0 2.500 0.500 3 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 Up ge-1/3/9.0 1.500 0.500 3 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 Up ge-1/3/9.0 2.500 0.500 3

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Justin Krejci

We are not getting identical BFD timers or multiplier values from RS1 and RS2. (added blank lines for readability) usi-cr02-mpls#show bfd peers bfd interface ethernet24/1 detail | i ^Peer|^Received|^TxI Peer Addr 206.108.255.1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 Peer Addr 206.108.255.2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5

April 27, 2021

Re: WiscNet MICE switch maintenance 2021-04-27 7am - Noon

by Chris Wopat

On 4/20/21 12:15 PM, Chris Wopat wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > Heads up that the WiscNet remote MICE switch will be going down for > maintenance a week from today - Tuesday April 27th from 7am until > approximately noon. > > We'll gracefully tear down BGP Sessions in advance and will chime in > when complete. This maintenance is complete, things should be back online and peering re-established. We're troubleshooting an issue with a downstream connection to University of Minnesota, it is not resolved but we completed all physical troubleshooting. Details are in the MiceMN slack workspace #tech channel: https://micemn.slack.com/archives/C2J6NJS1Y/p1619525844000600 We're likely going to do additional tshooting later this week as well. -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Jeremy Lumby

I have always wondered why there was more traffic leaving RS2, and this would support that. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:00 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th I am also getting 10ms as the received value from 206.108.255.2 and 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2. I do get the expected 500ms from .1 and :1. -- Richard To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Richard Laager

I am also getting 10ms as the received value from 206.108.255.2 and 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2. I do get the expected 500ms from .1 and :1. -- Richard

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Doug McIntyre

micemn-01 protocol bfd { interface "bce1" { interval 500 ms; multiplier 3; passive; }; } micemn-02 protocol bfd { interface "bce1" { interval 500 ms; multiplier 3; passive; }; } On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 01:28:13PM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: >Are both MICE route reflectors configure to be 500 msec as of this moment? It appears that RR#2 is configured differently. > >Our router is stating that RR#2's Received RxInt is 10 msec: > >Apr 15 17:37:34 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) Bfd: %BFD-5-INCOMPATIBLE_RX_INTERVAL: Received a BFD rx interval from peer (vrf:default, ip:206.108.255.2 (AS53679-MRS-2.micemn.net) intf:Port-Channel2, srcIp:0.0.0.0, type:normal) of 10 milliseconds, outside of the supported range of 50-60000 milliseconds. (message repeated 3 times in 1.18783e+06 secs) > > >SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista(s2)#show bfd neighbors interface port-Channel 2 detail >VRF name: default >----------------- >Peer Addr 206.108.255.1, Intf Port-Channel2, Type normal, State Up >VRF default, LAddr 206.108.255.133, LD/RD 3460049634/334592880 >Session state is Up and not using echo function >Last Up Apr 24 12:11:36 2021 >Last Down Apr 24 12:11:33 2021 >Last Diag: No Diagnostic >TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 >Rx Count: 595169, Rx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 340/482/412 last: 632 ms ago >Tx Count: 566334, Tx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 371/496/433 last: 632 ms ago >Detect Time: 1500 >Sched Delay: 1*TxInt: 20967555, 2*TxInt: 4570, 3*TxInt: 0, GT 3*TxInt: 0 >Registered protocols: bgp >Uptime: 2 days, 20:11:34.74 >Last packet: Version: 1 - Diagnostic: 0 > State bit: Up - Demand bit: 0 > Poll bit: 0 - Final bit: 0 > Multiplier: 3 - Length: 24 > My Discr.: 334592880 - Your Discr.: 3460049634 > Min tx interval: 500 - Min rx interval: 500 > Min Echo interval: 0 > >Peer Addr 206.108.255.2, Intf Port-Channel2, Type normal, State Up >VRF default, LAddr 206.108.255.133, LD/RD 301505937/1393863972 >Session state is Up and not using echo function >Last Up Apr 24 12:11:37 2021 >Last Down Apr 24 12:11:33 2021 >Last Diag: No Diagnostic >TxInt: 300, RxInt: 300, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 >Rx Count: 991837, Rx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 194/480/247 last: 634 ms ago >Tx Count: 949660, Tx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 219/296/258 last: 634 ms ago >Detect Time: 1500 >Sched Delay: 1*TxInt: 35149798, 2*TxInt: 13194, 3*TxInt: 0, GT 3*TxInt: 0 >Registered protocols: bgp >Uptime: 2 days, 20:11:34.27 >Last packet: Version: 1 - Diagnostic: 0 > State bit: Up - Demand bit: 0 > Poll bit: 0 - Final bit: 0 > Multiplier: 5 - Length: 24 > My Discr.: 1393863972 - Your Discr.: 301505937 > Min tx interval: 100 - Min rx interval: 10 > Min Echo interval: 0 > >SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista(s2)# > >Frank > >-----Original Message----- >From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre >Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:01 AM >To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th > >So, you're looking to lower it from 500ms down to 50ms when most of >the recomendations are a bottom limit of 150ms? > >On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:37:52AM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: >>So can we change the route reflectors to use 50 msec? >> >>Frank >> >>From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Ben Wiechman >>Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:47 PM >>To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th >> >>IOS-XR bottoms out at 15ms. IOS/XE has typically been 150ms. >> >>Agreed that in general unless you have <50ms failover requirements 150ms+ is probably a good compromise. >> >>Ben Wiechman >>Director of IP Strategy and Engineering >>Direct: 320.256.0184 >>Cell: 320.247.3224 >>ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com<mailto:ben.wiechman@arvig.com> >>150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com<http://arvig.com> >> >>On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 17:57 Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>> wrote: >>On Apr 21, 2021, at 5:52 PM, David Farmer <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> wrote: >> >>On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:36 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com<mailto:rlaager@wiktel.com>> wrote: >>On 4/21/21 3:04 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: >>> And to follow up on my previous question, is Arista falling bit short in >>> our situation, by not supporting a receive interval of 10 msec? >> >>I've had a couple vendors suggest not to make it that short. Brocade, >>for example, suggested 150 ms as a minimum. Arista was more vague, but >>from your error message, apparently their implementation doesn't even >>try to do less than 50 ms. >> >>Maybe think about this from another perspective, 10 ms is 100 times a second, 50 ms is 20 times a second, and 150 ms just over 6 times a second. I think 10 ms is probably being a little impatient. >> >>Not the mention, the added CPU load on both ends dealing with said BFD packets 100x/sec. >> >>We’ve generally seen 50-250ms used in practice. 10ms does seem super aggressive. We use 250ms x 3 here for backbone links and peers/transit that support BFD, and 750ms x 3 facing internal gear. >> >> >>— >>Andrew Hoyos >>hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.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 >

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Frank Bulk

Are both MICE route reflectors configure to be 500 msec as of this moment? It appears that RR#2 is configured differently. Our router is stating that RR#2's Received RxInt is 10 msec: Apr 15 17:37:34 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) Bfd: %BFD-5-INCOMPATIBLE_RX_INTERVAL: Received a BFD rx interval from peer (vrf:default, ip:206.108.255.2 (AS53679-MRS-2.micemn.net) intf:Port-Channel2, srcIp:0.0.0.0, type:normal) of 10 milliseconds, outside of the supported range of 50-60000 milliseconds. (message repeated 3 times in 1.18783e+06 secs) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista(s2)#show bfd neighbors interface port-Channel 2 detail VRF name: default ----------------- Peer Addr 206.108.255.1, Intf Port-Channel2, Type normal, State Up VRF default, LAddr 206.108.255.133, LD/RD 3460049634/334592880 Session state is Up and not using echo function Last Up Apr 24 12:11:36 2021 Last Down Apr 24 12:11:33 2021 Last Diag: No Diagnostic TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 Rx Count: 595169, Rx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 340/482/412 last: 632 ms ago Tx Count: 566334, Tx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 371/496/433 last: 632 ms ago Detect Time: 1500 Sched Delay: 1*TxInt: 20967555, 2*TxInt: 4570, 3*TxInt: 0, GT 3*TxInt: 0 Registered protocols: bgp Uptime: 2 days, 20:11:34.74 Last packet: Version: 1 - Diagnostic: 0 State bit: Up - Demand bit: 0 Poll bit: 0 - Final bit: 0 Multiplier: 3 - Length: 24 My Discr.: 334592880 - Your Discr.: 3460049634 Min tx interval: 500 - Min rx interval: 500 Min Echo interval: 0 Peer Addr 206.108.255.2, Intf Port-Channel2, Type normal, State Up VRF default, LAddr 206.108.255.133, LD/RD 301505937/1393863972 Session state is Up and not using echo function Last Up Apr 24 12:11:37 2021 Last Down Apr 24 12:11:33 2021 Last Diag: No Diagnostic TxInt: 300, RxInt: 300, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 Rx Count: 991837, Rx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 194/480/247 last: 634 ms ago Tx Count: 949660, Tx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 219/296/258 last: 634 ms ago Detect Time: 1500 Sched Delay: 1*TxInt: 35149798, 2*TxInt: 13194, 3*TxInt: 0, GT 3*TxInt: 0 Registered protocols: bgp Uptime: 2 days, 20:11:34.27 Last packet: Version: 1 - Diagnostic: 0 State bit: Up - Demand bit: 0 Poll bit: 0 - Final bit: 0 Multiplier: 5 - Length: 24 My Discr.: 1393863972 - Your Discr.: 301505937 Min tx interval: 100 - Min rx interval: 10 Min Echo interval: 0 SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista(s2)# Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:01 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th So, you're looking to lower it from 500ms down to 50ms when most of the recomendations are a bottom limit of 150ms? On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:37:52AM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: >So can we change the route reflectors to use 50 msec? > >Frank > >From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Ben Wiechman >Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:47 PM >To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th > >IOS-XR bottoms out at 15ms. IOS/XE has typically been 150ms. > >Agreed that in general unless you have <50ms failover requirements 150ms+ is probably a good compromise. > >Ben Wiechman >Director of IP Strategy and Engineering >Direct: 320.256.0184 >Cell: 320.247.3224 >ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com<mailto:ben.wiechman@arvig.com> >150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com<http://arvig.com> > >On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 17:57 Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>> wrote: >On Apr 21, 2021, at 5:52 PM, David Farmer <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:36 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com<mailto:rlaager@wiktel.com>> wrote: >On 4/21/21 3:04 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: >> And to follow up on my previous question, is Arista falling bit short in >> our situation, by not supporting a receive interval of 10 msec? > >I've had a couple vendors suggest not to make it that short. Brocade, >for example, suggested 150 ms as a minimum. Arista was more vague, but >from your error message, apparently their implementation doesn't even >try to do less than 50 ms. > >Maybe think about this from another perspective, 10 ms is 100 times a second, 50 ms is 20 times a second, and 150 ms just over 6 times a second. I think 10 ms is probably being a little impatient. > >Not the mention, the added CPU load on both ends dealing with said BFD packets 100x/sec. > >We’ve generally seen 50-250ms used in practice. 10ms does seem super aggressive. We use 250ms x 3 here for backbone links and peers/transit that support BFD, and 750ms x 3 facing internal gear. > > >— >Andrew Hoyos >hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.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

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Richard Laager

On 4/27/21 12:01 AM, Doug McIntyre wrote: > So, you're looking to lower it from 500ms down to 50ms when most of > the recomendations are a bottom limit of 150ms? That raises a good point. BFD negotiates the /higher/ of the two configured timeouts. So even if Frank has his set crazy low, if the route servers have a minimum of 500 ms, that's what they'll end up using. Frank, can you check "show bfd neighbor detail" or similar on your router? Are you negotiating 500 ms timeouts with the route servers? That would make the detection time 1500 ms (1.5s), which might suggest we're on the wrong track with the low timeouts causing the bouncing. (Or, maybe it still is that, meaning the disruption lasted long enough?) -- Richard

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Doug McIntyre

So, you're looking to lower it from 500ms down to 50ms when most of the recomendations are a bottom limit of 150ms? On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:37:52AM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: >So can we change the route reflectors to use 50 msec? > >Frank > >From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Ben Wiechman >Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:47 PM >To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th > >IOS-XR bottoms out at 15ms. IOS/XE has typically been 150ms. > >Agreed that in general unless you have <50ms failover requirements 150ms+ is probably a good compromise. > >Ben Wiechman >Director of IP Strategy and Engineering >Direct: 320.256.0184 >Cell: 320.247.3224 >ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com<mailto:ben.wiechman@arvig.com> >150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com<http://arvig.com> > >On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 17:57 Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>> wrote: >On Apr 21, 2021, at 5:52 PM, David Farmer <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:36 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com<mailto:rlaager@wiktel.com>> wrote: >On 4/21/21 3:04 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: >> And to follow up on my previous question, is Arista falling bit short in >> our situation, by not supporting a receive interval of 10 msec? > >I've had a couple vendors suggest not to make it that short. Brocade, >for example, suggested 150 ms as a minimum. Arista was more vague, but >from your error message, apparently their implementation doesn't even >try to do less than 50 ms. > >Maybe think about this from another perspective, 10 ms is 100 times a second, 50 ms is 20 times a second, and 150 ms just over 6 times a second. I think 10 ms is probably being a little impatient. > >Not the mention, the added CPU load on both ends dealing with said BFD packets 100x/sec. > >We’ve generally seen 50-250ms used in practice. 10ms does seem super aggressive. We use 250ms x 3 here for backbone links and peers/transit that support BFD, and 750ms x 3 facing internal gear. > > >— >Andrew Hoyos >hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.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

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Frank Bulk

So can we change the route reflectors to use 50 msec? Frank From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Ben Wiechman Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:47 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th IOS-XR bottoms out at 15ms. IOS/XE has typically been 150ms. Agreed that in general unless you have <50ms failover requirements 150ms+ is probably a good compromise. Ben Wiechman Director of IP Strategy and Engineering Direct: 320.256.0184 Cell: 320.247.3224 ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com<mailto:ben.wiechman@arvig.com> 150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com<http://arvig.com> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 17:57 Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>> wrote: On Apr 21, 2021, at 5:52 PM, David Farmer <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> wrote: On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:36 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com<mailto:rlaager@wiktel.com>> wrote: On 4/21/21 3:04 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > And to follow up on my previous question, is Arista falling bit short in > our situation, by not supporting a receive interval of 10 msec? I've had a couple vendors suggest not to make it that short. Brocade, for example, suggested 150 ms as a minimum. Arista was more vague, but from your error message, apparently their implementation doesn't even try to do less than 50 ms. Maybe think about this from another perspective, 10 ms is 100 times a second, 50 ms is 20 times a second, and 150 ms just over 6 times a second. I think 10 ms is probably being a little impatient. Not the mention, the added CPU load on both ends dealing with said BFD packets 100x/sec. We’ve generally seen 50-250ms used in practice. 10ms does seem super aggressive. We use 250ms x 3 here for backbone links and peers/transit that support BFD, and 750ms x 3 facing internal gear. — Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.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

April 27, 2021

Re: Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek

by Dean Bahls

Jay is correct. AS32609 has no ports other than for uplinks. Thanks, Dean -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:42 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek I believe their ASN is disconnected from MICE. We still have IP assignments in the system but no ports other than for the remote uplinks. On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:40 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > > On 4/26/21 2:06 PM, Dean Bahls wrote: > > Acentek is PO5 on our remote, comprised of Eth 1/6 and 1/7 (if you > > care) > > Okay, but then where is CNS (AS32609, which is currently listed as 1/6 > on the website)? > > -- > Richard -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

April 26, 2021

Re: Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek

by Jay Hanke

I believe their ASN is disconnected from MICE. We still have IP assignments in the system but no ports other than for the remote uplinks. On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:40 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > > On 4/26/21 2:06 PM, Dean Bahls wrote: > > Acentek is PO5 on our remote, comprised of Eth 1/6 and 1/7 (if you care) > > Okay, but then where is CNS (AS32609, which is currently listed as 1/6 > on the website)? > > -- > Richard -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

April 26, 2021

Re: Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek

by Richard Laager

On 4/26/21 2:06 PM, Dean Bahls wrote: > Acentek is PO5 on our remote, comprised of Eth 1/6 and 1/7 (if you care) Okay, but then where is CNS (AS32609, which is currently listed as 1/6 on the website)? -- Richard

April 26, 2021

Re: Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek

by Jesse Reed

Thanks everyone; much appreciated! Jesse -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:39 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek EXTERNAL: This email originated from a sender outside AcenTek. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. No problem. I moved the port into their LAG in the portal. Graphs in the portal should update in 24 hours. On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:06 PM Dean Bahls <dean.bahls(a)cooperative-networks.com> wrote: > > Dang, I thought we sent a note about that not too long ago. Acentek > is PO5 on our remote, comprised of Eth 1/6 and 1/7 (if you care) > > Thanks! > > Dean > > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay > Hanke > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:04 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP > Dashboard / AcenTek > > I don't think we got the notice from the remote switch operator. > > Steve/Dean do you have the new port info for Acentek? > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:00 PM Jesse Reed <jreed(a)acentek.net> wrote: > > > > To whom it may concern: > > > > Earlier this year, AcenTek worked w/someone to turn up a 2nd link inside a 20 Gig port-ch @ the 511 building facing our equipment. Logging into the IXP portal today, we see that our information is still only reflective of 1 single 10 Gig link. Can this information be updated accordingly inside the AcenTek portal? > > > > Thanks ahead of time, > > > > Jesse Reed > > > > -- > Jay Hanke, President > South Front Networks > jayhanke(a)southfront.io > Phone 612-204-0000 -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

April 26, 2021

Re: Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek

by Jay Hanke

No problem. I moved the port into their LAG in the portal. Graphs in the portal should update in 24 hours. On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:06 PM Dean Bahls <dean.bahls(a)cooperative-networks.com> wrote: > > Dang, I thought we sent a note about that not too long ago. Acentek is PO5 on our remote, comprised of Eth 1/6 and 1/7 (if you care) > > Thanks! > > Dean > > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:04 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek > > I don't think we got the notice from the remote switch operator. > > Steve/Dean do you have the new port info for Acentek? > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:00 PM Jesse Reed <jreed(a)acentek.net> wrote: > > > > To whom it may concern: > > > > Earlier this year, AcenTek worked w/someone to turn up a 2nd link inside a 20 Gig port-ch @ the 511 building facing our equipment. Logging into the IXP portal today, we see that our information is still only reflective of 1 single 10 Gig link. Can this information be updated accordingly inside the AcenTek portal? > > > > Thanks ahead of time, > > > > Jesse Reed > > > > -- > Jay Hanke, President > South Front Networks > jayhanke(a)southfront.io > Phone 612-204-0000 -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

April 26, 2021

Re: Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek

by Dean Bahls

Dang, I thought we sent a note about that not too long ago. Acentek is PO5 on our remote, comprised of Eth 1/6 and 1/7 (if you care) Thanks! Dean -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 2:04 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek I don't think we got the notice from the remote switch operator. Steve/Dean do you have the new port info for Acentek? On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:00 PM Jesse Reed <jreed(a)acentek.net> wrote: > > To whom it may concern: > > Earlier this year, AcenTek worked w/someone to turn up a 2nd link inside a 20 Gig port-ch @ the 511 building facing our equipment. Logging into the IXP portal today, we see that our information is still only reflective of 1 single 10 Gig link. Can this information be updated accordingly inside the AcenTek portal? > > Thanks ahead of time, > > Jesse Reed -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

April 26, 2021

Re: Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek

by Jay Hanke

I don't think we got the notice from the remote switch operator. Steve/Dean do you have the new port info for Acentek? On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 2:00 PM Jesse Reed <jreed(a)acentek.net> wrote: > > To whom it may concern: > > Earlier this year, AcenTek worked w/someone to turn up a 2nd link inside a 20 Gig port-ch @ the 511 building facing our equipment. Logging into the IXP portal today, we see that our information is still only reflective of 1 single 10 Gig link. Can this information be updated accordingly inside the AcenTek portal? > > Thanks ahead of time, > > Jesse Reed -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

April 26, 2021

Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek

by Jesse Reed

To whom it may concern: Earlier this year, AcenTek worked w/someone to turn up a 2nd link inside a 20 Gig port-ch @ the 511 building facing our equipment. Logging into the IXP portal today, we see that our information is still only reflective of 1 single 10 Gig link. Can this information be updated accordingly inside the AcenTek portal? Thanks ahead of time, Jesse Reed

April 26, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Ben Wiechman

IOS-XR bottoms out at 15ms. IOS/XE has typically been 150ms. Agreed that in general unless you have <50ms failover requirements 150ms+ is probably a good compromise. Ben Wiechman Director of IP Strategy and Engineering Direct: 320.256.0184 Cell: 320.247.3224 ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com 150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 17:57 Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 21, 2021, at 5:52 PM, David Farmer < > 0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:36 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > >> On 4/21/21 3:04 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: >> > And to follow up on my previous question, is Arista falling bit short in >> >> > our situation, by not supporting a receive interval of 10 msec? >> >> I've had a couple vendors suggest not to make it that short. Brocade, >> for example, suggested 150 ms as a minimum. Arista was more vague, but >> from your error message, apparently their implementation doesn't even >> try to do less than 50 ms. >> > > Maybe think about this from another perspective, 10 ms is 100 times a > second, 50 ms is 20 times a second, and 150 ms just over 6 times a second. > I think 10 ms is probably being a little impatient. > > > Not the mention, the added CPU load on both ends dealing with said BFD > packets 100x/sec. > > We’ve generally seen 50-250ms used in practice. 10ms does seem super > aggressive. We use 250ms x 3 here for backbone links and peers/transit that > support BFD, and 750ms x 3 facing internal gear. > > > — > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com > > > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

April 22, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Andrew Hoyos

On Apr 21, 2021, at 5:52 PM, David Farmer <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:36 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com <mailto:rlaager@wiktel.com>> wrote: > On 4/21/21 3:04 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > > And to follow up on my previous question, is Arista falling bit short in > > our situation, by not supporting a receive interval of 10 msec? > > I've had a couple vendors suggest not to make it that short. Brocade, > for example, suggested 150 ms as a minimum. Arista was more vague, but > from your error message, apparently their implementation doesn't even > try to do less than 50 ms. > > Maybe think about this from another perspective, 10 ms is 100 times a second, 50 ms is 20 times a second, and 150 ms just over 6 times a second. I think 10 ms is probably being a little impatient. Not the mention, the added CPU load on both ends dealing with said BFD packets 100x/sec. We’ve generally seen 50-250ms used in practice. 10ms does seem super aggressive. We use 250ms x 3 here for backbone links and peers/transit that support BFD, and 750ms x 3 facing internal gear. — Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com <mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>

April 21, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by David Farmer

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:36 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > On 4/21/21 3:04 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > > And to follow up on my previous question, is Arista falling bit short in > > our situation, by not supporting a receive interval of 10 msec? > > I've had a couple vendors suggest not to make it that short. Brocade, > for example, suggested 150 ms as a minimum. Arista was more vague, but > from your error message, apparently their implementation doesn't even > try to do less than 50 ms. > Maybe think about this from another perspective, 10 ms is 100 times a second, 50 ms is 20 times a second, and 150 ms just over 6 times a second. I think 10 ms is probably being a little impatient. Thanks. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================

April 21, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Richard Laager

On 4/21/21 3:04 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > And to follow up on my previous question, is Arista falling bit short in > our situation, by not supporting a receive interval of 10 msec? I've had a couple vendors suggest not to make it that short. Brocade, for example, suggested 150 ms as a minimum. Arista was more vague, but from your error message, apparently their implementation doesn't even try to do less than 50 ms. -- Richard

April 21, 2021