- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

UG 30 Meeting

by Richard Laager

The MICE UG 31 meeting will be held Wednesday, March 20, 3:00 pm, at the 511 Building Cafeteria, 11th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN. The agenda and draft UG 30 minutes are attached. This is the typical agenda. I'm behind on getting this together, so I haven't put out a separate call for agenda items. If anyone has agenda items, please let me know. The remote conferencing will be the same as before: 952-562-5400 passcode MICE (6423). -- Richard

March 14, 2019

FW: Amazon peering link maintenance

by Jeremy Lumby

FYI: From: D'Alton, Joshua [mailto:joshdalt@amazon.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 8:17 PM To: peering(a)micemn.net Cc: 'snoc-neteng(a)amazon.com' Subject: Amazon peering link maintenance Hi team, We are performing maintenance on our MICE IX in Minneapolis for the next hour. Please ignore link/BGP flaps. Thanks

March 14, 2019

South Dakota Networks Port Augment

by Jay Hanke

SDN communications has been allocated Ethernet4/7 to be added to their existing LAG Group. The group is moving from 20G to 30G Welcome Aboard Again! -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

March 12, 2019

Atomic Data Upgrade to 10G

by Jay Hanke

Atomic Data is upgrading their existing 1G connection to 10GE on the core switch. The new port assignment is Ethernet4/31 All IP/BGP Configuration will remain the same. They are planning the upgrade the week of 3/18/2019. Phil- Please provide a 10G SFP+ Arista compatible optic for installation into the main switch to Cologix or a tech committee member. Thanks! -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

March 6, 2019

Re: Please welcome South Front Networks to MICE

by Richard Laager

On 3/1/19 9:22 AM, Jay Hanke wrote: > Name: South Front Networks > Port: Ethernet 2 (SFN Albert Lea Remote) 10GE > ASN: 397326 > IPv4: 206.108.255.135/24 > IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:6:100e::1/64 > Peering Contact: peering(a)southfront.io > Route Servers- NO > BFD: Yes > > Please note this peering is IPv6 only. If this peering is IPv6 only, it seems unnecessary to allocate you an IPv4 peering address at this time. -- Richard

March 1, 2019

Please welcome South Front Networks to MICE

by Jay Hanke

Name: South Front Networks Port: Ethernet 2 (SFN Albert Lea Remote) 10GE ASN: 397326 IPv4: 206.108.255.135/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:6:100e::1/64 Peering Contact: peering(a)southfront.io Route Servers- NO BFD: Yes Please note this peering is IPv6 only. -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

March 1, 2019

Re: MICE Amazon Upgrade

by Richard Laager

On 2/26/19 6:55 PM, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > Since it is somewhat out of our control, if you want I can let you know what way it turns out once the new circuits come up. That's probably the best approach. It doesn't matter a lot, but I figure it might be helpful for debugging if we are accurate on that point. -- Richard

Feb. 27, 2019

Re: MICE Amazon Upgrade

by Jeremy Lumby

Since it is somewhat out of our control, if you want I can let you know what way it turns out once the new circuits come up. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2019 6:01 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Amazon Upgrade On 2/26/19 12:19 PM, Jay Hanke wrote: > Amazon is upgrading their current 2x2x10G configuration to 2x1x100G. > > The new 100G ports are as follows: > > Ethernet3/12/1 > Ethernet4/49/1 > > Amazon will order new cross connects and then cancel the existing 10G > connections at migration. > > All IP addressing will remain the same. Not that it matters too much, but given the way this is present on the Participants list, I'll ask... Which way will the IPs go? Is .111 for Ethernet4/49/1 or Ethernet3/12/1? -- Richard

Feb. 27, 2019

Re: MICE Amazon Upgrade

by Richard Laager

On 2/26/19 12:19 PM, Jay Hanke wrote: > Amazon is upgrading their current 2x2x10G configuration to 2x1x100G. > > The new 100G ports are as follows: > > Ethernet3/12/1 > Ethernet4/49/1 > > Amazon will order new cross connects and then cancel the existing 10G > connections at migration. > > All IP addressing will remain the same. Not that it matters too much, but given the way this is present on the Participants list, I'll ask... Which way will the IPs go? Is .111 for Ethernet4/49/1 or Ethernet3/12/1? -- Richard

Feb. 27, 2019

MICE Amazon Upgrade

by Jay Hanke

Amazon is upgrading their current 2x2x10G configuration to 2x1x100G. The new 100G ports are as follows: Ethernet3/12/1 Ethernet4/49/1 Amazon will order new cross connects and then cancel the existing 10G connections at migration. All IP addressing will remain the same. Thanks! -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Feb. 26, 2019

Re: Zayo MICE Remote

by James Urwiller

just got word from zayo that if not completed tomorrow, that significant progress will be made to complete the upgrade. here’s to hoping!!! Sent from my iPhone 7 > On Feb 24, 2019, at 13:46, Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)southfront.io> wrote: > > Of the affected remote participants, has everyone opened a Zayo ticket? > >> On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 12:50 PM James Urwiller <james.urwiller(a)turnkey-telecom.com> wrote: >> nothing. :(. >> >> Sent from my iPhone 7 >> >> > On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:39, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: >> > >> > Any update from Zayo or anyone else? The graph last night recorded 20.07 Gbps. >> > >> > Frank >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of James Urwiller >> > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 3:36 PM >> > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo MICE Remote >> > >> > Well my ticket is now in the hands of design/architecture @ Zayo. Will see >> > if I get any response from them. >> > >> > James Urwiller >> > Network Architect >> > Stealth Broadband >> > james.urwiller(a)stealthbroadband.com >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: James Urwiller <james.urwiller(a)turnkey-telecom.com> >> > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 11:59 >> > To: 'MICE Discuss' <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> >> > Subject: RE: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo MICE Remote >> > >> > I called and opened a ticket regarding this.. I'll see what kind of mischief >> > I can cause >> > >> > James Urwiller >> > Network Architect >> > Stealth Broadband >> > james.urwiller(a)stealthbroadband.com >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jeremy >> > Lumby >> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 19:14 >> > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo MICE Remote >> > >> > Just an FYI: >> > >> > In the event that one of the members in Belle Plaine needs a quick >> > alternate route, I do have transport capacity between Belle Plaine, and my >> > MICE extension switch. I could potentially get you moved as fast as 1-2 >> > business days. >> > >> > >> > 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 >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of >> > Richard Laager >> > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 7:04 PM >> > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo MICE Remote >> > >> > The 20G backhaul from the Zayo MICE remote in Belle Plaine to the MICE Core >> > Switch has recently exceeded 17G, 18G, and even 19G on the Cacti graphs. >> > >> > I initially reported this to Zayo on January 14th. We preemptively allocated >> > another 10G port on January 17th in an attempt to streamline the upgrade. I >> > asked for a status update on January 24th. Today, I contacted Zayo again >> > stressing the seriousness and urgency of the situation. The upgrade does >> > seem to be moving forward again, but Zayo has not provided an estimate on >> > when the upgrade will be complete. >> > >> > Given that the backhaul hit 19.73G last night, I'm bringing this to the >> > attention of the participants, who may wish to take some action (e.g. >> > shifting traffic). >> > >> > -- >> > Richard >> > > > > -- > Jay Hanke, President > South Front Networks > jayhanke(a)southfront.io > Phone 612-204-0000 > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Feb. 26, 2019

Re: Zayo MICE Remote

by James Urwiller

Update on my Zayo ticket.. LATEST CASE COMMENT *Comments* Hello, Our circuit design team is still working on this and it has already been expedited. Further updates will be shared once they are available. Thanks, Katelin James Urwiller Network Architect Stealth Broadband james.urwiller(a)stealthbroadband.com [image: stealth300] *From:* MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> *On Behalf Of *Jay Hanke *Sent:* Sunday, February 24, 2019 13:47 *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo MICE Remote Of the affected remote participants, has everyone opened a Zayo ticket? On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 12:50 PM James Urwiller < james.urwiller(a)turnkey-telecom.com> wrote: nothing. :(. Sent from my iPhone 7 > On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:39, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: > > Any update from Zayo or anyone else? The graph last night recorded 20.07 Gbps. > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of James Urwiller > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 3:36 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo MICE Remote > > Well my ticket is now in the hands of design/architecture @ Zayo. Will see > if I get any response from them. > > James Urwiller > Network Architect > Stealth Broadband > james.urwiller(a)stealthbroadband.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Urwiller <james.urwiller(a)turnkey-telecom.com> > Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 11:59 > To: 'MICE Discuss' <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > Subject: RE: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo MICE Remote > > I called and opened a ticket regarding this.. I'll see what kind of mischief > I can cause > > James Urwiller > Network Architect > Stealth Broadband > james.urwiller(a)stealthbroadband.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jeremy > Lumby > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 19:14 > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo MICE Remote > > Just an FYI: > > In the event that one of the members in Belle Plaine needs a quick > alternate route, I do have transport capacity between Belle Plaine, and my > MICE extension switch. I could potentially get you moved as fast as 1-2 > business days. > > > 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 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of > Richard Laager > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 7:04 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo MICE Remote > > The 20G backhaul from the Zayo MICE remote in Belle Plaine to the MICE Core > Switch has recently exceeded 17G, 18G, and even 19G on the Cacti graphs. > > I initially reported this to Zayo on January 14th. We preemptively allocated > another 10G port on January 17th in an attempt to streamline the upgrade. I > asked for a status update on January 24th. Today, I contacted Zayo again > stressing the seriousness and urgency of the situation. The upgrade does > seem to be moving forward again, but Zayo has not provided an estimate on > when the upgrade will be complete. > > Given that the backhaul hit 19.73G last night, I'm bringing this to the > attention of the participants, who may wish to take some action (e.g. > shifting traffic). > > -- > Richard > -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000 ------------------------------ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Feb. 25, 2019

Re: MICE attached compliance speed test server

by Mike Horwath

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 03:49:55PM +0000, Chris Wopat wrote: > If the goal is something small, one would likely have to go with a real > x86 based thing, perhaps an intel NUC: > > https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/boards-kits/nuc.html Or any Xeon-D system would work - has more ethernets, 10Gbps available as well, very low power. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Feb. 25, 2019

Re: MICE attached compliance speed test server

by steve ulrich

aiui, anchor's are not meant to be used for b/w testing per se and are to be used in conjunction with the atlas probes. the only anchor that i'm aware of that might be MICE attached is at wikstrom. there are however a number of atlas probes in the area. (i host a couple) On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:45 AM Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)southfront.io> wrote: > I think there is an OpenWRT project floating around for network testing. > That hardware can be had for less than $100. > > There is also the RIPE Atlas project that is worth checking out. It looks > like some MICE members have existing anchors. > > *https://atlas.ripe.net/ <https://atlas.ripe.net/>* > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:33 AM Jeff Wilde <jeff.wilde(a)parkregion.com> > wrote: > >> Wouldn't that be like a $200+ client solution? Seems relatively high is >> the issue or am I looking at it wrong. I know that Vantage Point is pretty >> costly when your talking about 100+ or whatever the number is clients. >> >> >> Jeff >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Lubitz, >> Jake (MNIT) >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 10:05 AM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE attached compliance speed test server >> >> +1 on the NUC. The Raspi 3B+ USB ports and Ethernet port all share an USB >> 2.0 bus. So at most, you may see up to 300Mbps of throughput on the Raspi. >> I've tried iperf and speedtest-cli on the Raspi and never got over 200Mbps >> on a 1Gbps WAN connection. >> >> Jake >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Chris >> Wopat >> Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 9:50 AM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE attached compliance speed test server >> >> On 2/25/19 9:46 AM, Shaun Carlson wrote: >> > I was looking at a couple of options for Raspberry Pi, but haven't >> > built anything yet. Have you? >> >> Pi starting with model 3b+ can link at gigabit, but cannot do anywhere >> near that speed. >> >> If the goal is something small, one would likely have to go with a real >> x86 based thing, perhaps an intel NUC: >> >> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intel.… >> >> >> -- >> Chris Wopat >> Network Engineer, WiscNet >> wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965 >> > > > -- > Jay Hanke, President > South Front Networks > jayhanke(a)southfront.io > Phone 612-204-0000 > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- steve ulrich (sulrich(a)botwerks.*)

Feb. 25, 2019

Re: MICE attached compliance speed test server

by Corey Hines

I can attest, RPI 3B+ starts dropping around 250-350mbps of sustained throughput. Corey Hines Systems Engineer Arista Networks m 612-209-6550 o 408-547-8075 chines(a)arista.com TAC: support(a)arista.com www.arista.com Arista EOS: A Tale of Opposite Architectures <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hfwr6sY27hA&authuser=1> Download the EOS Configuration Manual <https://www.arista.com/assets/data/docs/Manuals/EOS-4.15.4F-Manual.pdf> Install vEOS-lab for testing & training <https://eos.arista.com/running-veos-on-esxi-5-5/> On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:49 AM Chris Wopat <wopat(a)wiscnet.net> wrote: > On 2/25/19 9:46 AM, Shaun Carlson wrote: > > I was looking at a couple of options for Raspberry Pi, but haven't built > > anything yet. Have you? > > Pi starting with model 3b+ can link at gigabit, but cannot do anywhere > near that speed. > > If the goal is something small, one would likely have to go with a real > x86 based thing, perhaps an intel NUC: > > https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/boards-kits/nuc.html > > > -- > Chris Wopat > Network Engineer, WiscNet > wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965 >

Feb. 25, 2019

Re: MICE attached compliance speed test server

by Jay Hanke

I think there is an OpenWRT project floating around for network testing. That hardware can be had for less than $100. There is also the RIPE Atlas project that is worth checking out. It looks like some MICE members have existing anchors. *https://atlas.ripe.net/ <https://atlas.ripe.net/>* On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:33 AM Jeff Wilde <jeff.wilde(a)parkregion.com> wrote: > Wouldn't that be like a $200+ client solution? Seems relatively high is > the issue or am I looking at it wrong. I know that Vantage Point is pretty > costly when your talking about 100+ or whatever the number is clients. > > > Jeff > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Lubitz, > Jake (MNIT) > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 10:05 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE attached compliance speed test server > > +1 on the NUC. The Raspi 3B+ USB ports and Ethernet port all share an USB > 2.0 bus. So at most, you may see up to 300Mbps of throughput on the Raspi. > I've tried iperf and speedtest-cli on the Raspi and never got over 200Mbps > on a 1Gbps WAN connection. > > Jake > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Chris > Wopat > Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 9:50 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE attached compliance speed test server > > On 2/25/19 9:46 AM, Shaun Carlson wrote: > > I was looking at a couple of options for Raspberry Pi, but haven't > > built anything yet. Have you? > > Pi starting with model 3b+ can link at gigabit, but cannot do anywhere > near that speed. > > If the goal is something small, one would likely have to go with a real > x86 based thing, perhaps an intel NUC: > > > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intel.… > > > -- > Chris Wopat > Network Engineer, WiscNet > wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965 > -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Feb. 25, 2019

Re: MICE attached compliance speed test server

by Jeff Wilde

Wouldn't that be like a $200+ client solution? Seems relatively high is the issue or am I looking at it wrong. I know that Vantage Point is pretty costly when your talking about 100+ or whatever the number is clients. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Lubitz, Jake (MNIT) Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 10:05 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE attached compliance speed test server +1 on the NUC. The Raspi 3B+ USB ports and Ethernet port all share an USB 2.0 bus. So at most, you may see up to 300Mbps of throughput on the Raspi. I've tried iperf and speedtest-cli on the Raspi and never got over 200Mbps on a 1Gbps WAN connection. Jake -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Chris Wopat Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 9:50 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE attached compliance speed test server On 2/25/19 9:46 AM, Shaun Carlson wrote: > I was looking at a couple of options for Raspberry Pi, but haven't > built anything yet. Have you? Pi starting with model 3b+ can link at gigabit, but cannot do anywhere near that speed. If the goal is something small, one would likely have to go with a real x86 based thing, perhaps an intel NUC: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intel.… -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Feb. 25, 2019

Re: MICE attached compliance speed test server

by Lubitz, Jake (MNIT)

+1 on the NUC. The Raspi 3B+ USB ports and Ethernet port all share an USB 2.0 bus. So at most, you may see up to 300Mbps of throughput on the Raspi. I've tried iperf and speedtest-cli on the Raspi and never got over 200Mbps on a 1Gbps WAN connection. Jake -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Chris Wopat Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 9:50 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE attached compliance speed test server On 2/25/19 9:46 AM, Shaun Carlson wrote: > I was looking at a couple of options for Raspberry Pi, but haven't > built anything yet. Have you? Pi starting with model 3b+ can link at gigabit, but cannot do anywhere near that speed. If the goal is something small, one would likely have to go with a real x86 based thing, perhaps an intel NUC: https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.intel.… -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Feb. 25, 2019

Re: MICE attached compliance speed test server

by Reid Fishler

Wasn't there JUST a thread on this on Nanog? (what to use for speedtest gear) Reid On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:49 AM Chris Wopat <wopat(a)wiscnet.net> wrote: > On 2/25/19 9:46 AM, Shaun Carlson wrote: > > I was looking at a couple of options for Raspberry Pi, but haven't built > > anything yet. Have you? > > Pi starting with model 3b+ can link at gigabit, but cannot do anywhere > near that speed. > > If the goal is something small, one would likely have to go with a real > x86 based thing, perhaps an intel NUC: > > https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/boards-kits/nuc.html > > > -- > Chris Wopat > Network Engineer, WiscNet > wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965 > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

Feb. 25, 2019

Re: MICE attached compliance speed test server

by Chris Wopat

On 2/25/19 9:46 AM, Shaun Carlson wrote: > I was looking at a couple of options for Raspberry Pi, but haven't built > anything yet. Have you? Pi starting with model 3b+ can link at gigabit, but cannot do anywhere near that speed. If the goal is something small, one would likely have to go with a real x86 based thing, perhaps an intel NUC: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/boards-kits/nuc.html -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Feb. 25, 2019

Re: MICE attached compliance speed test server

by Shaun Carlson

I was looking at a couple of options for Raspberry Pi, but haven't built anything yet. Have you? s *Shaun Carlson* Director of R&D and Continuous Innovation *ph*: (218) 346.8673 | *em*: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com *schedule a meeting:* phone call <https://x.ai/calendar/shauncarlson/phone> | video call <https://x.ai/calendar/shauncarlson/video> | meeting <https://x.ai/calendar/shauncarlson/office> *Arvig* | 150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 9:37 AM Jeff Wilde <jeff.wilde(a)parkregion.com> wrote: > Have you looked into using a raspberry PI device? > > > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> *On Behalf Of *Steve > Howard > *Sent:* Monday, February 25, 2019 9:20 AM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE attached compliance speed test server > > > > Our Calix sales guy has told us that they have changed their software to > support servers like ours. > > However, as I understand things, the Calix testing solution only works > with their Gigaspire product. This greatly limits the usefulness of their > product so we developed an in-house solution based on smokeping to do the > testing for us. Not ideal, but, it will get the job done. > > On 02/25/2019 08:11 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: > > I’m not sure how many companies are also interested in this, but if it > could be used by Calix or Vantage Point’s CAF II-based broadband testing > solutions, we would be interested in financially supporting this. > > > > Frank > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> *On Behalf Of *Jay Hanke > *Sent:* Sunday, February 24, 2019 11:13 AM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE attached compliance speed test server > > > > Was there any progress on this? > > > > -- > > Jay Hanke, President > > South Front Networks > > jayhanke(a)southfront.io > > Phone 612-204-0000 > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Feb. 25, 2019

Re: MICE attached compliance speed test server

by Jeff Wilde

Have you looked into using a raspberry PI device? From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Steve Howard Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 9:20 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE attached compliance speed test server Our Calix sales guy has told us that they have changed their software to support servers like ours. However, as I understand things, the Calix testing solution only works with their Gigaspire product. This greatly limits the usefulness of their product so we developed an in-house solution based on smokeping to do the testing for us. Not ideal, but, it will get the job done. On 02/25/2019 08:11 AM, Frank Bulk wrote: I’m not sure how many companies are also interested in this, but if it could be used by Calix or Vantage Point’s CAF II-based broadband testing solutions, we would be interested in financially supporting this. Frank From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET><mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2019 11:13 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE attached compliance speed test server Was there any progress on this? -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io<mailto:jayhanke@southfront.io> Phone 612-204-0000 ________________________________ 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

Feb. 25, 2019

Re: MICE attached compliance speed test server

by Steve Howard

Feb. 25, 2019

Re: MICE attached compliance speed test server

by Steve Howard

Feb. 25, 2019

Re: MICE attached compliance speed test server

by Steve Howard

Feb. 25, 2019