- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Participants List Web Page

by Mike Tindle

> Is Hurricane Electric still planning to upgrade to 10Gig? I see they > have both 1Gig and 10Gig ports assigned. Yep, we're working on it. Hopefully moved to 10g in a few days here. Mike On Oct 12, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > The participants.html web page is out-of-date. Given this is a > volunteer-run exchange, I've done a bunch of updating work myself. (See > the attachment.) I believe I have everything current and complete, > except as noted below. > > This originally started because I wanted looking glass addresses listed. > I've since changed my thinking on that. If you list a looking glass in > your peeringdb.com entry, bgp.he.net (to which we already link) picks > that up automatically. This saves us from having to maintain that data > on the MICE participants page. > > Accordingly, I'd like to urge Visi to create a peeringdb.com record and > list their Looking Glass URL. (No shaming implied... I don't have a > looking glass running... yet.) > > Should the MICE AS have a peeringdb.com entry? We could list the route > server there, for the same reason. > > Is there value in linking to the respective peeringdb.com links? If so, > should the anchor text be the carrier's name, or a new column? > > We are still missing contacts for these networks: > South Dakota Networks > Dakota Carrier Network > Northern Lights GigaPoP > Compudyne > MyTelepath > Genesis Wireless/RevNetData > Jaguar Communications > NU Telecom > > Dakota Carrier Network was assigned two IPv4 addresses, but only one > IPv6 address. I assume the IPv6 assignment was an oversight. > > Is Hurricane Electric still planning to upgrade to 10Gig? I see they > have both 1Gig and 10Gig ports assigned. > > Richard > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > <participants.html> *----------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C ---------->> | Mike Tindle | Network Engineer | mtindle(a)he.net | ASN 6939 | http://www.he.net | 510-580-4126 *---------------------------------------------------->> ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 12, 2011

Re: MICE Port Fees

by Eric Crist

Is there some sort of board or hierarchy within MICE now? Perhaps running it with a board elected by members (annual membership dues??) who can then 'take ownership' for their term of some things. This would help alleviate burn-out of contributing members, and encourage folks to participate and have a somewhat 'static' role in the organization. Having a board would also allow for positions such as Treasurer, VP, and President who could help steer things in an organized way. What's been going on thus far has worked, but it seems apparent MICE is growing and beginning to have some growing pains, even if only in terms of donated time/resources running out. Having a treasurer that can report on current expenses, upcoming expenses, and account balances would also help keep tabs on resources. As Richard suggested, labor could always expect to be donated. Other associations I'm a member of operate in a similar manner and have proved successful. The hardest part in the long-run is getting people to participate. Maybe annual membership dues and a rotating list of donated time. (Company X and company Y installed the switches, next on the list is company Z.) Just my 2¢. --- Eric F Crist System Administrator ClaimLynx, Inc (952) 593-5969 x2301 On Oct 12, 2011, at 17:57:38, Richard Laager wrote: > On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 17:19 -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: >> Since all of the MICE expenses are recurring in nature, would it make >> more sense to have smaller fees, however make them monthly for all >> members? > > I think it would be wise to start with a list of expenses, including the > frequency and amount. That should make it easy to develop the recurring > and/or non-recurring fees to charge members. It will also provide > transparency, versus just (appearing to be) pulling numbers out of the > air. > >> I know that the labor in lieu of fees could get complicated > > I would recommend assuming all labor will be donated. That can be > revisited later, if needed, but focusing on only cash outflows will keep > the complexity to a minimum. > > Does the MICE LLC have non-profit status with the relevant government > agencies? > > Richard > > ######################################################################## > > 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. 12, 2011

Re: MICE Port Fees

by Richard Laager

On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 17:19 -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > Since all of the MICE expenses are recurring in nature, would it make > more sense to have smaller fees, however make them monthly for all > members? I think it would be wise to start with a list of expenses, including the frequency and amount. That should make it easy to develop the recurring and/or non-recurring fees to charge members. It will also provide transparency, versus just (appearing to be) pulling numbers out of the air. > I know that the labor in lieu of fees could get complicated I would recommend assuming all labor will be donated. That can be revisited later, if needed, but focusing on only cash outflows will keep the complexity to a minimum. Does the MICE LLC have non-profit status with the relevant government agencies? 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. 12, 2011

MICE Port Fees

by Jeremy Lumby

Since all of the MICE expenses are recurring in nature, would it make more sense to have smaller fees, however make them monthly for all members? Something like $25/month for 1 Gig and $100/mo for 10Gig plus the one time cost of optics. If members do not want to take on these fees, they could possibly do some kind of donation of time, such as doing port moves/adds/changes. I know that the labor in lieu of fees could get complicated, and some limits would need to be set (such as if a bunch of people wanted to do it, they would only be able to do so for a limited amount of time to allow others to have a chance as well). I can foresee a time when the recurring funds will need to be built up to purchase additional switches, pay for IP blocks directly from ARIN, and replace failed/old switches/route servers. I know that the donation of space, and power from FWR had a time limit on it, and those recurring costs will be coming up as well. I feel now is the time to plan ahead/save up some extra money so when those donations run out the exchange will not hit a brick wall with members that would be sticker shocked by how much it would take to keep it going. I think a little bit from every member over the years will add up to quite a bit by the time that some major expenses hit the exchange. By that point in time, I think small adjustments if any in the monthly fee would be much easier to swallow for the members. I think that anyone that realizes the value of the exchange would gladly pay to stay connected. I am sure that the recurring fees would never need to be more than the cost of the cross connect which we are already gladly paying for, and the more people that join, the higher the value of the exchange, and the smaller the cost on a per member basis. I do not think that the marketing of the exchange needs to be that it is of little to no cost, I believe it can be marketed as us sharing our knowledge of the benefits of the exchange with potential members, as well as making sure that they realize that the exchange exists. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 3:45 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Port Fees What is the funding model of the exchange now? I go around and beg for donations whenever something pops up. (Thanks again for the annual ARIN fees BTW) That was fine when it was a couple of ISPs and a switch but the exchange is quickly becoming a critical piece of infrastructure for the region. 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 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 12, 2011

Participants List Web Page

by Richard Laager

The participants.html web page is out-of-date. Given this is a volunteer-run exchange, I've done a bunch of updating work myself. (See the attachment.) I believe I have everything current and complete, except as noted below. This originally started because I wanted looking glass addresses listed. I've since changed my thinking on that. If you list a looking glass in your peeringdb.com entry, bgp.he.net (to which we already link) picks that up automatically. This saves us from having to maintain that data on the MICE participants page. Accordingly, I'd like to urge Visi to create a peeringdb.com record and list their Looking Glass URL. (No shaming implied... I don't have a looking glass running... yet.) Should the MICE AS have a peeringdb.com entry? We could list the route server there, for the same reason. Is there value in linking to the respective peeringdb.com links? If so, should the anchor text be the carrier's name, or a new column? We are still missing contacts for these networks: South Dakota Networks Dakota Carrier Network Northern Lights GigaPoP Compudyne MyTelepath Genesis Wireless/RevNetData Jaguar Communications NU Telecom Dakota Carrier Network was assigned two IPv4 addresses, but only one IPv6 address. I assume the IPv6 assignment was an oversight. Is Hurricane Electric still planning to upgrade to 10Gig? I see they have both 1Gig and 10Gig ports assigned. 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. 12, 2011

Re: MICE Port Fees

by Jay Hanke

> > > What is the funding model of the exchange now? > I go around and beg for donations whenever something pops up. (Thanks again for the annual ARIN fees BTW) That was fine when it was a couple of ISPs and a switch but the exchange is quickly becoming a critical piece of infrastructure for the region. 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. 12, 2011

Re: MICE Port Fees

by Owen DeLong

I believe so far, the funding model has been corporate and personal largess. Said funding model does not scale and I think the fees proposed are quite reasonable. I say this personally. I have not yet discussed the matter with my colleagues at HE. Owen Sent from my iPad On Oct 12, 2011, at 16:32, "Hannigan, Martin" <marty(a)AKAMAI.COM> wrote: > > > What is the funding model of the exchange now? > > Best, > > -M< > > > > > On 10/12/11 4:30 PM, "Jay Hanke" <jayhanke(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET> wrote: > > I'd like to hear discussion on charging initial and upgrade one time fees to MICE members needing additional or new ports on the main switch. > > Perhaps something like: > 1G $250 (+optic) > 10G $1500 (+optic) > > We would use the money to operate the exchange. > > 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 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 12, 2011

Re: MICE Port Fees

by Hannigan, Martin

What is the funding model of the exchange now? Best, -M< On 10/12/11 4:30 PM, "Jay Hanke" <jayhanke(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET> wrote: I'd like to hear discussion on charging initial and upgrade one time fees to MICE members needing additional or new ports on the main switch. Perhaps something like: 1G $250 (+optic) 10G $1500 (+optic) We would use the money to operate the exchange. 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. 12, 2011

MICE Port Fees

by Jay Hanke

I'd like to hear discussion on charging initial and upgrade one time fees to MICE members needing additional or new ports on the main switch. Perhaps something like: 1G $250 (+optic) 10G $1500 (+optic) We would use the money to operate the exchange. 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. 12, 2011

Re: New MICE Looking Glass

by Steve Howard

On 10/11/2011 09:14 AM, Mike Horwath wrote: > This whole DNS thing on a router discussion is funny. It was a logical discussion to determine what is best for MICE. I'm sorry if you find it insignificant, but I'm glad that you found humor in it. > I can use DNS to figure out an area for the IP in question... > > I can enter said IP into a separate query afterwards to find an area in question... > > Which is faster for finding the info I am looking for? Be realistic. > > I have used DNS in my routers and switches since IOS supported such. Funny, so has Doug :) > > Sure, you can add latency to your output but it doesn't slow the packets down, and I sure as hell cannot memorize the Internet to figure out which city I am in or which provider I'm crossing. > > That extra few ms here and there still outruns copy/paste click submit every time. > Do a traceroute that has a few hops that haven't set up their PTR records properly. (Or in a VRF with no DNS, etc). You will wait a while for each hop to resolve. You are correct in that it doesn't slow the packets down on the network. However, it greatly delays the time between packets. It changes from a few ms to several seconds per hop (default timeout can be changed with "ip domain timeout"). Add this up for a couple of hops and you must be really slow at copy/paste for it to be worse. I know that everyone should have all of their PTR records setup properly, but it doesn't happen that way in the real world. > Perhaps a company could run dedicatd nameservers for their networking gear, or just run better nameservers on their infrastructure. Dedicated/better name servers won't solve anything when there is no valid PTR record. > Yah, i know that sounds condescending but I don't know a better way to phrase this this morning. > MICE is made up of many members that operate in different areas of the "tech" industry. What may seem best for your particular industry segment may not be the "best fit" for the majority of MICE members or the internet community. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 11, 2011

Re: New MICE Looking Glass

by Mike Horwath

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:06:14AM -0400, Owen DeLong wrote: > I find the extra SECONDS, not ms, that it takes when things don't > resolve, especially when it's an IOS typo command that IOS tries to > turn into a host name for telnet, for example to be far more > annoying than the numeric (which is usually what I want if I'm on a > router or looking glass anyway) output in trace routes. <snarky comment removed about not doing typos> :) We each have our reasons one way or another, and for MICE, I really don't care. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau(a)iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkeley Fortune ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 11, 2011

Re: New MICE Looking Glass

by Owen DeLong

I find the extra SECONDS, not ms, that it takes when things don't resolve, especially when it's an IOS typo command that IOS tries to turn into a host name for telnet, for example to be far more annoying than the numeric (which is usually what I want if I'm on a router or looking glass anyway) output in trace routes. Owen Sent from my iPad On Oct 11, 2011, at 10:14, Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)IPHOUSE.NET> wrote: > This whole DNS thing on a router discussion is funny. > > I can use DNS to figure out an area for the IP in question... > > I can enter said IP into a separate query afterwards to find an area in question... > > Which is faster for finding the info I am looking for? Be realistic. > > I have used DNS in my routers and switches since IOS supported such. Funny, so has Doug :) > > Sure, you can add latency to your output but it doesn't slow the packets down, and I sure as hell cannot memorize the Internet to figure out which city I am in or which provider I'm crossing. > > That extra few ms here and there still outruns copy/paste click submit every time. > > Perhaps a company could run dedicatd nameservers for their networking gear, or just run better nameservers on their infrastructure. Yah, i know that sounds condescending but I don't know a better way to phrase this this morning. > > -- > Mike Horwath via iPad 2, electric boogaloo! > ######################################################################## > > 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. 11, 2011

Re: New MICE Looking Glass

by Mike Horwath

This whole DNS thing on a router discussion is funny. I can use DNS to figure out an area for the IP in question... I can enter said IP into a separate query afterwards to find an area in question... Which is faster for finding the info I am looking for? Be realistic. I have used DNS in my routers and switches since IOS supported such. Funny, so has Doug :) Sure, you can add latency to your output but it doesn't slow the packets down, and I sure as hell cannot memorize the Internet to figure out which city I am in or which provider I'm crossing. That extra few ms here and there still outruns copy/paste click submit every time. Perhaps a company could run dedicatd nameservers for their networking gear, or just run better nameservers on their infrastructure. Yah, i know that sounds condescending but I don't know a better way to phrase this this morning. -- Mike Horwath via iPad 2, electric boogaloo! ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 11, 2011

Re: New MICE Looking Glass

by Steve Howard

I would prefer that we do not enable DNS lookups. We disable them in all of our devices due to the delays that they can cause, especially with traceroutes. Steve On 10/10/2011 09:44 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > There's no DNS resolution set up on that router -- is that a BCP, or something that can be added? > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:31 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] New MICE Looking Glass > > I just wanted to let everyone know that MICE now has a public looking glass. I donated an old Cisco 7120 Router, and Doug from the ipHouse configured/installed it, as well as provided internet access to it. You can look at the routes by telneting to route-server.micemn.net The username is provided in the log in banner. > > 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. 11, 2011

Re: New MICE Looking Glass

by Owen DeLong

It's a BCP. Waiting for DNS when it doesn't resolve is the last thing you want to do with a looking glass and numeric results are usually far more useful anyway. Owen On Oct 10, 2011, at 7:44 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > There's no DNS resolution set up on that router -- is that a BCP, or something that can be added? > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:31 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] New MICE Looking Glass > > I just wanted to let everyone know that MICE now has a public looking glass. I donated an old Cisco 7120 Router, and Doug from the ipHouse configured/installed it, as well as provided internet access to it. You can look at the routes by telneting to route-server.micemn.net The username is provided in the log in banner. > > 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. 11, 2011

Re: New MICE Looking Glass

by Doug McIntyre

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:44:20PM -0500, Frank Bulk wrote: > There's no DNS resolution set up on that router -- is that a BCP, or something that can be added? I don't think DNS lookups are too much a security risk. I thought I had them on. This particular platform seems to default to 'no ip domain-lookup' whereas most of the platforms I config default to it being enabled. Such is the oddness of Cisco sometimes. There are some other things taken out on purpose. Some hard limits put in place, and a bit of protection. But not super restricted on all the weird and numerous commands that cisco routers have by default at that privilege level. If you find anything egregarious, let me know and I'll config it out. But I'm not too worried about perhaps some weird LAT connect attempts out to somewhere (since its not a routable protocol.. :) -- 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. 11, 2011

Re: New MICE Looking Glass

by Justin Krejci

The possibility of of hijacking your DNS queries goes up from zero to nonzero when enabling DNS lookups on the router also it can cause delays on some commands when their are DNS resolution issues. Unless you have a specific reason to have DNS lookups enabled on a cisco, I prefer to have DNS lookups disabled. I didn't check what all commands are allowed with the rviews account but it could be locked down pretty tight to only the various show commands specific to BGP routing data. ------Original Message------ From: Frank Bulk Sender: MICE Discuss To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET ReplyTo: MICE Discuss Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] New MICE Looking Glass Sent: Oct 10, 2011 9:44 PM There's no DNS resolution set up on that router -- is that a BCP, or something that can be added? Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:31 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] New MICE Looking Glass I just wanted to let everyone know that MICE now has a public looking glass. I donated an old Cisco 7120 Router, and Doug from the ipHouse configured/installed it, as well as provided internet access to it. You can look at the routes by telneting to route-server.micemn.net The username is provided in the log in banner. 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 Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 11, 2011

Re: New MICE Looking Glass

by Frank Bulk

There's no DNS resolution set up on that router -- is that a BCP, or something that can be added? Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:31 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] New MICE Looking Glass I just wanted to let everyone know that MICE now has a public looking glass. I donated an old Cisco 7120 Router, and Doug from the ipHouse configured/installed it, as well as provided internet access to it. You can look at the routes by telneting to route-server.micemn.net The username is provided in the log in banner. 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. 11, 2011

Re: New MICE Looking Glass

by Steve Howard

Justin, Thanks! I was trying "show ip bgp ipv6"... Ooops. Steve On 10/10/2011 08:08 PM, Justin Krejci wrote: > Yep it does. > > Do a 'show bgp ipv6 ...' for ipv6 joy > > > ------Original Message------ > From: Steve Howard > Sender: MICE Discuss > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > ReplyTo: MICE Discuss > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] New MICE Looking Glass > Sent: Oct 10, 2011 8:03 PM > > Jeremy, > > I like it. Thanks for your work on this. > > Does your router support IPv6? I couldn't figure out how to see IPv6 > routes. > > Thanks! > Steve > > On 10/10/2011 02:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby wrote: >> I just wanted to let everyone know that MICE now has a public looking glass. I donated an old Cisco 7120 Router, and Doug from the ipHouse configured/installed it, as well as provided internet access to it. You can look at the routes by telneting to route-server.micemn.net The username is provided in the log in banner. >> >> 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 > > > Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile > > ######################################################################## > > 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. 11, 2011

Re: New MICE Looking Glass

by Justin Krejci

Yep it does. Do a 'show bgp ipv6 ...' for ipv6 joy ------Original Message------ From: Steve Howard Sender: MICE Discuss To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET ReplyTo: MICE Discuss Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] New MICE Looking Glass Sent: Oct 10, 2011 8:03 PM Jeremy, I like it. Thanks for your work on this. Does your router support IPv6? I couldn't figure out how to see IPv6 routes. Thanks! Steve On 10/10/2011 02:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > I just wanted to let everyone know that MICE now has a public looking glass. I donated an old Cisco 7120 Router, and Doug from the ipHouse configured/installed it, as well as provided internet access to it. You can look at the routes by telneting to route-server.micemn.net The username is provided in the log in banner. > > 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 Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 11, 2011

Re: New MICE Looking Glass

by Steve Howard

Jeremy, I like it. Thanks for your work on this. Does your router support IPv6? I couldn't figure out how to see IPv6 routes. Thanks! Steve On 10/10/2011 02:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > I just wanted to let everyone know that MICE now has a public looking glass. I donated an old Cisco 7120 Router, and Doug from the ipHouse configured/installed it, as well as provided internet access to it. You can look at the routes by telneting to route-server.micemn.net The username is provided in the log in banner. > > 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. 11, 2011

Re: New MICE Looking Glass

by Mike Horwath

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 02:31:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > I just wanted to let everyone know that MICE now has a public > looking glass. I donated an old Cisco 7120 Router, and Doug from > the ipHouse configured/installed it, as well as provided internet > access to it. You can look at the routes by telneting to > route-server.micemn.net The username is provided in the log in > banner. Thanks for that - good to see it operational. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau(a)iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkeley Fortune ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 10, 2011

New MICE Looking Glass

by Jeremy Lumby

I just wanted to let everyone know that MICE now has a public looking glass. I donated an old Cisco 7120 Router, and Doug from the ipHouse configured/installed it, as well as provided internet access to it. You can look at the routes by telneting to route-server.micemn.net The username is provided in the log in banner. 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. 10, 2011

Re: MICE ASN Annual Fee

by Mike Horwath

On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 02:57:18PM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > We need $100 to renew the MICE ASN with ARIN. Please donate... If can't find what's needed, hit me up, I'll write the check. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau(a)iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkeley Fortune ######################################################################## 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: MICE ASN Annual Fee

by Hannigan, Martin

I’ll send the $100 bucks for this. Paypal? (non akamai) Best, -M< On 10/7/11 3:57 PM, "Jay Hanke" <jayhanke(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET> wrote: 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 ######################################################################## 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

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