- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Andrew Hoyos

On Sep 20, 2011, at 7:54 PM, Jay Hanke wrote: > Frankly, I'm surprised at the outpouring of love for spanning-tree on > the list. I've on more than one occasion selected a vendor with a ring > or a virtual chassis technology to avoid spanning-tree in the core. I > was also thrilled at the prospect of something like TRILL. > > Can someone take it on to make a design recommendation? I'll throw out a vote for a spanning-tree free IX design. I'd also throw up a flag of caution for allowing the IX network to be extended inside other carriers networks. Doing so only extends the failure domain of the IX, and makes it tougher to monitor and maintain. Now, OTOH, I think carrier sponsored "remote switches" with a connection into the core IX switches, and a prescribed participant facing config would be a better option, and better suited for the long haul. And to Jay's point, folks can still sell transport circuits to get folks connected into the exchange, just pop the other end into one of these "MICE Remote Switches". Honestly, I'm a little surprised that there is spanning tree running now across the IX. My vote would be for something along the lines of: - spanning tree free core/remote switches, managed under the guise of MICE - set config on participant facing ports - only allowing IPv4/IPv6/ARP - storm control set to low pps threshold or outright blocking of broadcast traffic besides ARP/ND packets - one MAC addr per participant facing port This recipe, IMHO, is the only way to avoid L2 meltdown in the future if more and more connection points are added. Thanks, Andrew ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 21, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Jay Hanke

> I haven't had any cross-vendor problems, even mixing RSTP and MSTP (in > configurations for which they are designed to mix). I think the problems come in more on the mixing vendors and more importantly mixing administrative domains with spanning tree. There are more than a couple of vendors with random spanning-tree quirks. Frankly, I'm surprised at the outpouring of love for spanning-tree on the list. I've on more than one occasion selected a vendor with a ring or a virtual chassis technology to avoid spanning-tree in the core. I was also thrilled at the prospect of something like TRILL. Can someone take it on to make a design recommendation? Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 21, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Justin Krejci

We mix vendors a lot including on the Minneapolis wifi network using MST and rstp. So literally thousands of bridges talking, more or less, faithfully. Sure some bugs exist but when facing adversity one must adapt or flounder (Darwinism?). Getting vendors to fix bugs helps immensely too of course. And yes convergence is faster than vanilla STP. Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----- From: Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> Sender: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:08:52 To: <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Reply-To: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Remote MICE members? On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 17:01 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Sep 20, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 15:13 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Unfortunately, fast converging spanning tree tends to be vendor-specific. > > > > RSTP and MSTP are both standards. Aren't they fast enough? > > > > If you have two vendors with compatible implementations of them, perhaps. Admittedly, it's > been a while, but, last time I tried, the interoperability across multiple vendors wasn't there > once you departed from normal 90-second spanning tree. I haven't had any cross-vendor problems, even mixing RSTP and MSTP (in configurations for which they are designed to mix). I'm about to add another vendor to the mix, so we'll see if this blows up in my face now that I've publicly said it's been working. ;) 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

Sept. 21, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Richard Laager

On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 17:01 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Sep 20, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 15:13 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > >> Unfortunately, fast converging spanning tree tends to be vendor-specific. > > > > RSTP and MSTP are both standards. Aren't they fast enough? > > > > If you have two vendors with compatible implementations of them, perhaps. Admittedly, it's > been a while, but, last time I tried, the interoperability across multiple vendors wasn't there > once you departed from normal 90-second spanning tree. I haven't had any cross-vendor problems, even mixing RSTP and MSTP (in configurations for which they are designed to mix). I'm about to add another vendor to the mix, so we'll see if this blows up in my face now that I've publicly said it's been working. ;) Richard ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 21, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Owen DeLong

On Sep 20, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 15:13 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Unfortunately, fast converging spanning tree tends to be vendor-specific. > > RSTP and MSTP are both standards. Aren't they fast enough? > If you have two vendors with compatible implementations of them, perhaps. Admittedly, it's been a while, but, last time I tried, the interoperability across multiple vendors wasn't there once you departed from normal 90-second spanning tree. Owen ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 21, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Richard Laager

On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 15:13 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > Unfortunately, fast converging spanning tree tends to be vendor-specific. RSTP and MSTP are both standards. Aren't they fast enough? Richard ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Jay Hanke

>> > That works great for CNS! > > I was thinking of other providers that might want to do the same thing. If you want to plop a switch in 511 or remotely, I don't think it's an issue to connect it into the MICE fabric. Actually there are a fair number of participants with similar setups who . Back to the original Grumpy's meeting we're going to err on the side of connectivity until it's a problem and then we can deal with it. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Steve Howard

Jay, On 09/20/2011 05:50 PM, Jay Hanke wrote: >> Unfortunately, that results in a cross-connect charge in addition to the >> ethernet transport. Doesn't exactly help to encourage membership. > I was thinking you would connect them to the switch in the CNS rack... > That works great for CNS! I was thinking of other providers that might want to do the same thing. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Jay Hanke

> Unfortunately, that results in a cross-connect charge in addition to the > ethernet transport. Doesn't exactly help to encourage membership. I was thinking you would connect them to the switch in the CNS rack... Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Owen DeLong

On Sep 20, 2011, at 2:46 PM, David Farmer wrote: > On 9/20/11 14:37 CDT, Jay Hanke wrote: >>> CNS has received a request from one of its customers for a direct connection >>> to MICE. >> >> This has come up before. I've been recommending that the carriers sell >> it as Ethernet transport and then pop into a "fresh" MICE access port >> so each carrier ends up with their own port. >> >> I don't see any problem placing a remote switch outside the Twin >> Cities. I would disable spanning tree. If we haven't already, we >> should disable spanning tree in the core switches or place a guard so >> the port goes down if a BPDU comes in. > > NO!!!!! DON'T Disable Spanning Tree. But we do need to think about Root Bridge and Root Guard issues. But Spanning tree is important in loop prevention, accidents do occur and spanning tree and prevent one of these accidents from turning into a broadcast storm. > > The best Idea is to design a loop free topology have spanning tree running to ensure the no loops occur by accident, which they more than likely will. If you're going to do that, make sure that spanning tree is running in fast convergence mode or you are asking for different brands of trouble. Unfortunately, fast converging spanning tree tends to be vendor-specific. Owen > >> Jay >> >> ######################################################################## >> >> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 > =============================================== > > ######################################################################## > > 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

Sept. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Steve Howard

On 09/20/2011 02:51 PM, Justin Krejci wrote: >> What is/was the original intention of the remote switches in the first >> place if not for extending the reach of the MICE network? Getting people >> onto the main/core switch is most preferably for flat simplicity... KISS >> IMO For the CNS switch, it was a requirement for the donation. CNS provides free use of the MICE 10Gig switch and power, provided that the switch stays in CNS space. CNS also pays for one cross-connect that was originally intended to connect the MICE switch to the main switch. I think that FWR donated the cross connect from CNS to the main switch (thanks Mike!) and CNS pays for the cross connect to the GigaPOP instead. (?) I can't recall how the Mankato Networks switch originally came online, but it was part of the plan from the beginning. Perhaps Jay can refresh our memory. I do like that it is there because it gives an option for people that might not otherwise be able to justify the cost of a cross connect to get connected to MICE. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by David Farmer

On 9/20/11 14:37 CDT, Jay Hanke wrote: >> CNS has received a request from one of its customers for a direct connection >> to MICE. > > This has come up before. I've been recommending that the carriers sell > it as Ethernet transport and then pop into a "fresh" MICE access port > so each carrier ends up with their own port. > > I don't see any problem placing a remote switch outside the Twin > Cities. I would disable spanning tree. If we haven't already, we > should disable spanning tree in the core switches or place a guard so > the port goes down if a BPDU comes in. NO!!!!! DON'T Disable Spanning Tree. But we do need to think about Root Bridge and Root Guard issues. But Spanning tree is important in loop prevention, accidents do occur and spanning tree and prevent one of these accidents from turning into a broadcast storm. The best Idea is to design a loop free topology have spanning tree running to ensure the no loops occur by accident, which they more than likely will. > Jay > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Steve Howard

Jay, On 09/20/2011 02:37 PM, Jay Hanke wrote: >> CNS has received a request from one of its customers for a direct connection >> to MICE. > This has come up before. I've been recommending that the carriers sell > it as Ethernet transport and then pop into a "fresh" MICE access port > so each carrier ends up with their own port. > Unfortunately, that results in a cross-connect charge in addition to the ethernet transport. Doesn't exactly help to encourage membership. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Justin Krejci

On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 14:37 -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > > CNS has received a request from one of its customers for a direct connection > > to MICE. > > This has come up before. I've been recommending that the carriers sell > it as Ethernet transport and then pop into a "fresh" MICE access port > so each carrier ends up with their own port. What is/was the original intention of the remote switches in the first place if not for extending the reach of the MICE network? Getting people onto the main/core switch is most preferably for flat simplicity... KISS IMO > > I don't see any problem placing a remote switch outside the Twin > Cities. I would disable spanning tree. If we haven't already, we > should disable spanning tree in the core switches or place a guard so > the port goes down if a BPDU comes in. +1 for properly managed STP unless/until it crosses administrative boundaries. Managing a shared STP domain between unrelated entities is messy. It only takes one port with an stp bpdu filter to generate a bad day that even a bpdu guard can't protect against. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Jay Hanke

> CNS has received a request from one of its customers for a direct connection > to MICE. This has come up before. I've been recommending that the carriers sell it as Ethernet transport and then pop into a "fresh" MICE access port so each carrier ends up with their own port. I don't see any problem placing a remote switch outside the Twin Cities. I would disable spanning tree. If we haven't already, we should disable spanning tree in the core switches or place a guard so the port goes down if a BPDU comes in. Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2011

Re: Remote MICE members?

by Owen DeLong

I would say that so long as we are careful to avoid creating loops in the topology and take proper steps to insure that fault isolation can be accomplished in the event of a problem, this is a good thing. Owen On Sep 20, 2011, at 12:25 PM, Steve Howard wrote: > Hello, > > CNS has received a request from one of its customers for a direct connection to MICE. > > If the consensus is to move forward, we could haul the MICE VLAN to that customer (and presumably to any other CNS member or customer who wants a direct MICE connection). This could result in the MICE VLAN appearing at various places throughout the region. > > I think that this could be a good thing for MICE, but if not managed correctly, it has the potential to be troublesome for problem isolation. MICE already has remote switches at 511. Other exchanges often have switches connected throughout their city. In this case, it is a little of both – except that the individual remote connections could be farther away in different directions. Does that matter? > > Whether we add remote connections or not, I'd like to see us come up with a plan for spanning tree. It probably would be best to make sure that our spanning tree root is one of the MICE 10Gig switches (probably the main one?). Or, alternatively, we could disable/filter spanning tree altogether and do MAC filtering for loop prevention. I think that spanning tree has its limitations, but it is much easier to maintain then MAC filtering. It looks like the current spanning tree root is 00:0c:db:fe:af:00 which looks like a Brocade device. Hmmm... We might want to change that... > > What does everybody think? Are there better ways to do this? > > 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

Sept. 20, 2011

Remote MICE members?

by Steve Howard

Hello, CNS has received a request from one of its customers for a direct connection to MICE. If the consensus is to move forward, we could haul the MICE VLAN to that customer (and presumably to any other CNS member or customer who wants a direct MICE connection). This could result in the MICE VLAN appearing at various places throughout the region. I think that this could be a good thing for MICE, but if not managed correctly, it has the potential to be troublesome for problem isolation. MICE already has remote switches at 511. Other exchanges often have switches connected throughout their city. In this case, it is a little of both – except that the individual remote connections could be farther away in different directions. Does that matter? Whether we add remote connections or not, I'd like to see us come up with a plan for spanning tree. It probably would be best to make sure that our spanning tree root is one of the MICE 10Gig switches (probably the main one?). Or, alternatively, we could disable/filter spanning tree altogether and do MAC filtering for loop prevention. I think that spanning tree has its limitations, but it is much easier to maintain then MAC filtering. It looks like the current spanning tree root is 00:0c:db:fe:af:00 which looks like a Brocade device. Hmmm... We might want to change that... What does everybody think? Are there better ways to do this? 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

Sept. 20, 2011

Re: SDN 10G Mice Upgrade

by Mitch Elfstrand

Jay, We are planning to upgrade to a 10G in the near future. Mike/Gary do we have a timeframe we can give Jay for the upgrade? Thanks, Mitch Elfstrand | Vice President of Network Engineering mitch.elfstrand(a)sdncommunications.com | 2900 W 10th St. | Sioux Falls, SD 57104 USA Direct +1.605.978.3587 | Mobile +1.605.212.3392 | TF +1.800.247.1442 | Fax +1.605.334.4782 -----Original Message----- From: Jay Hanke [mailto:jayhanke@mankatonetworks.net] Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2011 10:50 AM To: Mitch Elfstrand; MICE Discuss Subject: SDN 10G Mice Upgrade Mitch, We're starting to run low on 10 G ports on the main stack. Is SDN still planning to upgrade? Also note, you're likely going to see a large spike in traffic when Akamai goes live on the exchange. Jay ***This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, use or distribution of the information included in this message is prohibited -- Please immediately and permanently delete.*** ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 9, 2011

Re: SDN 10G Mice Upgrade

by Steve Howard

Jay, The CNS MICE switch still has several 10Gig ports available. They require X2 optics. Thanks, Steve On 09/08/2011 10:49 AM, Jay Hanke wrote: > Mitch, > > We're starting to run low on 10 G ports on the main stack. Is SDN > still planning to upgrade? > > Also note, you're likely going to see a large spike in traffic when > Akamai goes live on 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

Sept. 8, 2011

SDN 10G Mice Upgrade

by Jay Hanke

Mitch, We're starting to run low on 10 G ports on the main stack. Is SDN still planning to upgrade? Also note, you're likely going to see a large spike in traffic when Akamai goes live on 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

Sept. 8, 2011

Re: route server admin

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 11:35:43PM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > MyTelepath > 69.147.218.102 > AS 20338 Sure, they are all set. Up and running on both RRs. ASN_20338 BGP master up 23:52 Established FWIW: Looks like there's 735 prefixs in MICE now. -- 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

Sept. 8, 2011

Re: route server admin

by Jay Hanke

MyTelepath 69.147.218.102 AS 20338 On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 10:25:07PM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: >> Is there someone with route server admin rights that could add a peer online? > > Sure, I'm around tonight. > -- > 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 > -- 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

Sept. 8, 2011

Re: route server admin

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 10:25:07PM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > Is there someone with route server admin rights that could add a peer online? Sure, I'm around tonight. -- 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

Sept. 8, 2011

route server admin

by Jay Hanke

Is there someone with route server admin rights that could add a peer online? -- 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

Sept. 8, 2011

Re: MICE Meeting Dates

by Reid Fishler

Everyone should keep in mind that the largest telecom show in the world, ITW, is in Chicago this upcoming year: http://www.internationaltelecomsweek.com/ I will be there, but it may pay to have a floater or 2 for just MICE. :-) Reid On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 04:32:39PM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > > > I won't be there?? > > > > If there is ever a MICE meeting in Fargo, I'll offer buy gas for your > > Prius provided I can ride along... > > Deal. > > Guess I can be there after all! > > -- > 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 > > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 6, 2011

Re: MICE Meeting Dates

by Mike Horwath

On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 04:32:39PM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I won't be there?? > > If there is ever a MICE meeting in Fargo, I'll offer buy gas for your > Prius provided I can ride along... Deal. Guess I can be there after all! -- 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

Sept. 6, 2011

Re: MICE Meeting Dates

by Jay Hanke

> I won't be thereŠ If there is ever a MICE meeting in Fargo, I'll offer buy gas for your Prius provided I can ride along... Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 6, 2011

Re: MICE Meeting Dates

by Jay Hanke

> The May 9th, 2012 might not be ideal -- that is during the Tristate > Conference in Fargo. I bet that a number of our members will be at > Tristate. You might want to consider a different date. The goal is to get the meetings on a set schedule. If there was interest and we can find a host, I'd be open to having a meeting in Fargo... Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 6, 2011

Re: MICE Meeting Dates

by Mike Horwath

On 9/6/11 4:03 PM, "Steve Howard" <showard(a)PAULBUNYAN.NET> wrote: >Jay, > >The May 9th, 2012 might not be ideal -- that is during the Tristate >Conference in Fargo. I bet that a number of our members will be at >Tristate. You might want to consider a different date. I won't be thereŠ :) -- 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

Sept. 6, 2011

Re: MICE Meeting Dates

by Steve Howard

Jay, The May 9th, 2012 might not be ideal -- that is during the Tristate Conference in Fargo. I bet that a number of our members will be at Tristate. You might want to consider a different date. Thanks, Steve On 09/06/2011 03:53 PM, Jay Hanke wrote: > The next MICE meeting dates will be: > > November 9th, 2011 > May 9th, 2012 > November 14th, 2012 > > Thanks, > ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 6, 2011

MICE Meeting Dates

by Jay Hanke

The next MICE meeting dates will be: November 9th, 2011 May 9th, 2012 November 14th, 2012 Thanks, -- Jay Hanke CTO, CCIE #19093 Mankato Networks LLC 320 East Liberty Street 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

Sept. 6, 2011

Re: Mice routes via Northern Lights GigaPoP

by Hannigan, Martin

On 9/3/11 11:26 PM, "Jay Hanke" <jayhanke(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET> wrote: >> I'm back in the office next week and I'll try to get around to contacting >> Zayo. Probably later in the week, as I know I'm going to have a bunch of >> stuff waiting for me when I get into the office. :) > > Zayo has been to a MICE meeting and has been approached multiple times > they should be aware. You can lead a horse to water... [ .. ] > There are a number of carriers who have equipment within 150' of the > MICE rack but haven't connected. > Hopefully our presence can influence some of that for you. Akamai has an open peering policy. If you are connected to the IX and can send us an email (even a garbled one) asking us to peer, we'll say YES 100% of the time. Best, -M< ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 6, 2011

Re: Akamai Peering

by Hannigan, Martin

On 9/6/11 10:35 AM, "Jeremy Lumby" <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM> wrote: > Will Akamai be peered multi-laterally through the MICE route servers, or will > we need to email to setup individual bi-lateral BGP sessions with Akamai? Is > there an updated timeframe on when Akamai will be live on the exchange? > We prefer both. Time frame is soon. Best, -M< ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 6, 2011

Akamai Peering

by Jeremy Lumby

Will Akamai be peered multi-laterally through the MICE route servers, or will we need to email to setup individual bi-lateral BGP sessions with Akamai? Is there an updated timeframe on when Akamai will be live on the exchange? Thanks, 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 -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2011 11:15 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Mice routes via Northern Lights GigaPoP On 9/3/11 11:26 PM, "Jay Hanke" <jayhanke(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET> wrote: >> I'm back in the office next week and I'll try to get around to >> contacting Zayo. Probably later in the week, as I know I'm going to >> have a bunch of stuff waiting for me when I get into the office. :) > > Zayo has been to a MICE meeting and has been approached multiple times > they should be aware. You can lead a horse to water... [ .. ] > There are a number of carriers who have equipment within 150' of the > MICE rack but haven't connected. > Hopefully our presence can influence some of that for you. Akamai has an open peering policy. If you are connected to the IX and can send us an email (even a garbled one) asking us to peer, we'll say YES 100% of the time. Best, -M< ######################################################################## 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

Sept. 6, 2011

Re: Mice routes via Northern Lights GigaPoP

by David Farmer

On 9/3/11 22:26 CDT, Jay Hanke wrote: >> I'm back in the office next week and I'll try to get around to contacting >> Zayo. Probably later in the week, as I know I'm going to have a bunch of >> stuff waiting for me when I get into the office. :) > > Zayo has been to a MICE meeting and has been approached multiple times > they should be aware. You can lead a horse to water... > > There are a number of carriers who have equipment within 150' of the > MICE rack but haven't connected. Just like I can announce them the routes, but can't make the take them, that is the basics of Internet routing policy. :) If people would like, I can stop announce Zayo's routes to MICE or you can filter them if you want to maintain routing symmetry. I still plan to poke them again. :) I never said I would be successful. :) -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 4, 2011

Re: Mice routes via Northern Lights GigaPoP

by Jay Hanke

> I'm back in the office next week and I'll try to get around to contacting > Zayo. Probably later in the week, as I know I'm going to have a bunch of > stuff waiting for me when I get into the office. :) Zayo has been to a MICE meeting and has been approached multiple times they should be aware. You can lead a horse to water... There are a number of carriers who have equipment within 150' of the MICE rack but haven't connected. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 4, 2011

Re: Mice routes via Northern Lights GigaPoP

by David Farmer

On 8/31/11 19:31 CDT, Richard Laager wrote: > On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 19:26 -0500, Mike Horwath wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 03:28:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: >>> I have a case where I am seeing 199.199.0.0/16 in BGP via >>> MICE/Northern Lights GigaPoP. I have noticed that traffic to this >>> network takes MICE, however the return traffic is coming in across >>> one of my public Internet connections. I am assuming that either by >>> choice, or by accident that they are not accepting my route via >>> MICE/Northern Lights GigaPoP. I am wondering who would be the best >>> person to chat with about this since MICE does not list a peering >>> contact for Northern Lights GigaPoP in the participants page, and I >>> realize that the correct peering contact might be another level or >>> two deeper. >> >> Zayo (old Onvoy) network. >> >> Didn't we see something like this before when UMN connected things up >> with Zayo not accepting the route updates/insertions? > > FWIW: I'm seeing another possible problem the opposite way. I'm a > customer of Zayo and my routes to minnesota.edu go through the UMN, but > the return traffic goes to Zayo via Level3. Can you give me a prefix? The only routes I'm seeing from Zayo that I'm not accepting are ones that I have a better route to through MICE or a GigaPOP participant. Also, I'm not seeing any routes from AS33362 that are going via Level3, Cogent, TWTC, TransitRail or Internet2 CPS, our upstream Transit providers. Thanks -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 4, 2011

Re: Mice routes via Northern Lights GigaPoP

by David Farmer

Sorry, I'm out of the country and a bit behind on email. We are announcing the routes we learn from MICE to Zayo and VISI, two commercial peers we had prior to the creation of MICE. I've been meaning to contact them and suggest that they peer directly at MiCE. We also announce all of the GigaPOP R&E participants, the state, MnSCU, many of the private colleges, much of K12 in the state, North Dakota Higher Ed and K12, Iowa State and much of ICN, etc... I believe VISI is actually accepting the routes and that Zayo is not accepting the routes. As was discussed on the list I believe they have old static prefix filters in place and are not accepting the routes. I've also been meaning to contact them about that too. But it has been a busy summer, and I haven't had a chance to get to it. I'm back in the office next week and I'll try to get around to contacting Zayo. Probably later in the week, as I know I'm going to have a bunch of stuff waiting for me when I get into the office. :) On 8/31/11 15:28 CDT, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > I have a case where I am seeing 199.199.0.0/16 in BGP via MICE/Northern Lights GigaPoP. I have noticed that traffic to this network takes MICE, however the return traffic is coming in across one of my public Internet connections. I am assuming that either by choice, or by accident that they are not accepting my route via MICE/Northern Lights GigaPoP. I am wondering who would be the best person to chat with about this since MICE does not list a peering contact for Northern Lights GigaPoP in the participants page, and I realize that the correct peering contact might be another level or two deeper. > > Thanks, > Jeremy > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 4, 2011

Re: Bird Help

by James Montz

I am On Sep 2, 2011 4:10 PM, "Jay Hanke" <jayhanke(a)mankatonetworks.net> wrote: > Is someone around build a couple of new bgp sessions for a new carrier > on the route servers? > > -- > Jay Hanke > CTO, CCIE #19093 > Mankato Networks LLC > 320 East Liberty Street > 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 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 3, 2011

Bird Help

by Jay Hanke

Is someone around build a couple of new bgp sessions for a new carrier on the route servers? -- Jay Hanke CTO, CCIE #19093 Mankato Networks LLC 320 East Liberty Street 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

Sept. 2, 2011

Re: Mice routes via Northern Lights GigaPoP

by Matthew Beckwell

Yeahhh... It's by choice-- there are (old/outdated) static prefix filters on Zayo's peering session to the Gigapop. With the addition of MICE to AS57-- there's a lot more diverse traffic headed that direction than there used to be. I'll start a dialog with my contacts over there and see if we can get them to take more of a standard "transit" approach to that session. We have the same problem with our (relatively new) IPv4 prefix...MICE out...Level3/XO return... ~Matthew On Aug 31, 2011, at 3:28 PM, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > I have a case where I am seeing 199.199.0.0/16 in BGP via MICE/Northern Lights GigaPoP. I have noticed that traffic to this network takes MICE, however the return traffic is coming in across one of my public Internet connections. I am assuming that either by choice, or by accident that they are not accepting my route via MICE/Northern Lights GigaPoP. I am wondering who would be the best person to chat with about this since MICE does not list a peering contact for Northern Lights GigaPoP in the participants page, and I realize that the correct peering contact might be another level or two deeper. > > Thanks, > Jeremy > > ######################################################################## > > 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

Sept. 1, 2011

Re: Mice routes via Northern Lights GigaPoP

by Richard Laager

On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 19:26 -0500, Mike Horwath wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 03:28:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > I have a case where I am seeing 199.199.0.0/16 in BGP via > > MICE/Northern Lights GigaPoP. I have noticed that traffic to this > > network takes MICE, however the return traffic is coming in across > > one of my public Internet connections. I am assuming that either by > > choice, or by accident that they are not accepting my route via > > MICE/Northern Lights GigaPoP. I am wondering who would be the best > > person to chat with about this since MICE does not list a peering > > contact for Northern Lights GigaPoP in the participants page, and I > > realize that the correct peering contact might be another level or > > two deeper. > > Zayo (old Onvoy) network. > > Didn't we see something like this before when UMN connected things up > with Zayo not accepting the route updates/insertions? FWIW: I'm seeing another possible problem the opposite way. I'm a customer of Zayo and my routes to minnesota.edu go through the UMN, but the return traffic goes to Zayo via Level3. Richard ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 1, 2011

Re: Mice routes via Northern Lights GigaPoP

by Mike Horwath

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 03:28:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > I have a case where I am seeing 199.199.0.0/16 in BGP via > MICE/Northern Lights GigaPoP. I have noticed that traffic to this > network takes MICE, however the return traffic is coming in across > one of my public Internet connections. I am assuming that either by > choice, or by accident that they are not accepting my route via > MICE/Northern Lights GigaPoP. I am wondering who would be the best > person to chat with about this since MICE does not list a peering > contact for Northern Lights GigaPoP in the participants page, and I > realize that the correct peering contact might be another level or > two deeper. Zayo (old Onvoy) network. Didn't we see something like this before when UMN connected things up with Zayo not accepting the route updates/insertions? -- 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

Sept. 1, 2011

Mice routes via Northern Lights GigaPoP

by Jeremy Lumby

I have a case where I am seeing 199.199.0.0/16 in BGP via MICE/Northern Lights GigaPoP. I have noticed that traffic to this network takes MICE, however the return traffic is coming in across one of my public Internet connections. I am assuming that either by choice, or by accident that they are not accepting my route via MICE/Northern Lights GigaPoP. I am wondering who would be the best person to chat with about this since MICE does not list a peering contact for Northern Lights GigaPoP in the participants page, and I realize that the correct peering contact might be another level or two deeper. Thanks, Jeremy ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 31, 2011

Re: IPv6 Route Server Check-in

by Owen DeLong

Check your IPv6 MaxPrefixes limit. Owen On Aug 30, 2011, at 1:41 PM, Doug McIntyre wrote: > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 03:23:46PM -0500, Matthew Beckwell wrote: >> I just noticed both of our IPv6 sessions to the route servers are down. (2607:fe10:ffff::1, 2607:fe10:ffff::2). IPv4 is fine....other IPv6 sessions seem ok. >> (Although I'm not sure for how long-- my logging wasn't setup yet). >> >> Just doing a "DownForEveryoneOrJustMe" check... > > Hmm, up for us. > ... > 2607:fe10:ffff::1 > 4 53679 144213 126038 0 0 0 02w5d00h 19 > 2607:fe10:ffff::2 > 4 53679 144120 126038 0 0 0 02w5d00h 19 > > > And.. > > [merlyn@micemn-01 /]$ ping6 2607:fe10:ffff::25 > PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2607:fe10:ffff::1 --> 2607:fe10:ffff::25 > > ^C > > [merlyn@micemn-01 /]$ telnet 2607:fe10:ffff::25 bgp > Trying 2607:fe10:ffff::25... > telnet: connect to address 2607:fe10:ffff::25: Host is down > telnet: Unable to connect to remote host > > > Check your IPv6 stack? > > > > -- > 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 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 30, 2011

Re: IPv6 Route Server Check-in

by Matthew Beckwell

Found a typo on the ACL. Thanks for the extra eyes. ~Matthew -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 3:41 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] IPv6 Route Server Check-in On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 03:23:46PM -0500, Matthew Beckwell wrote: > I just noticed both of our IPv6 sessions to the route servers are down. (2607:fe10:ffff::1, 2607:fe10:ffff::2). IPv4 is fine....other IPv6 sessions seem ok. > (Although I'm not sure for how long-- my logging wasn't setup yet). > > Just doing a "DownForEveryoneOrJustMe" check... Hmm, up for us. ... 2607:fe10:ffff::1 4 53679 144213 126038 0 0 0 02w5d00h 19 2607:fe10:ffff::2 4 53679 144120 126038 0 0 0 02w5d00h 19 And.. [merlyn@micemn-01 /]$ ping6 2607:fe10:ffff::25 PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2607:fe10:ffff::1 --> 2607:fe10:ffff::25 ^C [merlyn@micemn-01 /]$ telnet 2607:fe10:ffff::25 bgp Trying 2607:fe10:ffff::25... telnet: connect to address 2607:fe10:ffff::25: Host is down telnet: Unable to connect to remote host Check your IPv6 stack? -- 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 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 30, 2011

Re: IPv6 Route Server Check-in

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 03:23:46PM -0500, Matthew Beckwell wrote: > I just noticed both of our IPv6 sessions to the route servers are down. (2607:fe10:ffff::1, 2607:fe10:ffff::2). IPv4 is fine....other IPv6 sessions seem ok. > (Although I'm not sure for how long-- my logging wasn't setup yet). > > Just doing a "DownForEveryoneOrJustMe" check... Hmm, up for us. ... 2607:fe10:ffff::1 4 53679 144213 126038 0 0 0 02w5d00h 19 2607:fe10:ffff::2 4 53679 144120 126038 0 0 0 02w5d00h 19 And.. [merlyn@micemn-01 /]$ ping6 2607:fe10:ffff::25 PING6(56=40+8+8 bytes) 2607:fe10:ffff::1 --> 2607:fe10:ffff::25 ^C [merlyn@micemn-01 /]$ telnet 2607:fe10:ffff::25 bgp Trying 2607:fe10:ffff::25... telnet: connect to address 2607:fe10:ffff::25: Host is down telnet: Unable to connect to remote host Check your IPv6 stack? -- 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

Aug. 30, 2011

Re: IPv6 Route Server Check-in

by Steve Howard

Our IPv6 sessions to MICE are both up and stable. On 08/30/2011 03:23 PM, Matthew Beckwell wrote: > I just noticed both of our IPv6 sessions to the route servers are down. (2607:fe10:ffff::1, 2607:fe10:ffff::2). IPv4 is fine....other IPv6 sessions seem ok. > (Although I'm not sure for how long-- my logging wasn't setup yet). > > Just doing a "DownForEveryoneOrJustMe" check... > ~Matthew > ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 30, 2011

IPv6 Route Server Check-in

by Matthew Beckwell

I just noticed both of our IPv6 sessions to the route servers are down. (2607:fe10:ffff::1, 2607:fe10:ffff::2). IPv4 is fine....other IPv6 sessions seem ok. (Although I'm not sure for how long-- my logging wasn't setup yet). Just doing a "DownForEveryoneOrJustMe" check... ~Matthew -- Matthew Beckwell - Senior Network and Application Engineer Advanced Integrated Technologies Office: 952-829-5511 x204 matthewb(a)aitech.net ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 30, 2011

"carrier choice" verbiage

by Ryan Goldberg

I've got a customer moving into a building where the building owners/management is attempting to enforce carrier exclusivity; they are in bed with another carrier. I already have the customer's other two sites on-net. This would be a third, new site. My fiber is just outside of the building, and I want to be in it. The owners of the company (my customer) have a pretty strong hand, and are looking for verbiage to add to the lease basically stating they can use whatever carrier they want. Does anyone have something like this handy? Thanks! Ryan ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 25, 2011