- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jeremy Lumby

Honestly I think the amount of work is minimal. I say that as the person that will probably be doing most of the work. There is even more that we should be doing to keep the IX clean and stable (like adding a quarantine VLAN to the turn-up process) which will add even more labor to the turn-up process. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Tom Krenn Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2022 8:27 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only Depends on the goal right? Stopping the 2 seconds of damage or recovering from 2 seconds of damage. (Ideally probably both.) But just throwing ideas out given the concerns being brought up with a static MAC ACL. Tom Krenn Network Architect Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 6:04 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only I think the way to think about it was the damage was done in 2 seconds (according to the syslog), however the switch did not automatically recover from those 2 seconds. So we need a method that will react quicker than 2 seconds like a MAC ACL. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Tom Krenn Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2022 4:24 PM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only I don't know the config of the switch but out of curiosity, would storm control help mitigate the impact on the forwarding table? We might still have 2-3 seconds of disruption but it may avoid the manual intervention and let us keep the more dynamic port security approach. Tom Krenn Network Architect Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:12 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only The issue was a member port. The port security took 2 seconds to shutdown the port, however 100G of traffic looped and crashed the forwarding table on the main switch, forcing manual intervention. A static MAC ACL on each port would not have taken time to react. This is what the SIX has been doing on their ports since 2010 (as well as multiple other layers of security). From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Kittel, Brady Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:07 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only Was the source of the issue a remote switch? " To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remoteswitches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcingthe current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing thosesettings as described here." -Brady ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)SOUTHFRONT.IO> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:05:08 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only CAUTION: This email originated from outside of HCMC. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The error disable takes 1-2 seconds to clamp down and disable the port. This results in a short, but severe, broadcast storm. The churn rate on members changing mac addresses is fairly low. I agree that we should automate the process so it can be done via self-service by the members. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:59 AM Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > enforce this per-VLAN. > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > this to the board for a vote. > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > ----- > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: >https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i… <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i…> > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > settings as described here. > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho… <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000 Confidentiality Notice: Information contained in this e-mail is being sent to you after appropriate authorization or by legal exception. You are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Re-disclosure without patient consent or as permitted by law is prohibited and may subject you to state and/or federal penalties. This information may also be legally privileged, the disclosure of which is governed by law. This information is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any access, disclosure, copying or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return or proof of destruction of the information contained in this message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Nov. 3, 2022

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Tom Krenn

Depends on the goal right? Stopping the 2 seconds of damage or recovering from 2 seconds of damage. (Ideally probably both.) But just throwing ideas out given the concerns being brought up with a static MAC ACL. Tom Krenn Network Architect Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology [Hennepin County logo] From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2022 6:04 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only I think the way to think about it was the damage was done in 2 seconds (according to the syslog), however the switch did not automatically recover from those 2 seconds. So we need a method that will react quicker than 2 seconds like a MAC ACL. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Tom Krenn Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2022 4:24 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only I don't know the config of the switch but out of curiosity, would storm control help mitigate the impact on the forwarding table? We might still have 2-3 seconds of disruption but it may avoid the manual intervention and let us keep the more dynamic port security approach. Tom Krenn Network Architect Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology [Hennepin County logo] From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:12 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only The issue was a member port. The port security took 2 seconds to shutdown the port, however 100G of traffic looped and crashed the forwarding table on the main switch, forcing manual intervention. A static MAC ACL on each port would not have taken time to react. This is what the SIX has been doing on their ports since 2010 (as well as multiple other layers of security). From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Kittel, Brady Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:07 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only Was the source of the issue a remote switch? " To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those settings as described here." -Brady ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> on behalf of Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)SOUTHFRONT.IO<mailto:jayhanke@SOUTHFRONT.IO>> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:05:08 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only CAUTION: This email originated from outside of HCMC. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The error disable takes 1-2 seconds to clamp down and disable the port. This results in a short, but severe, broadcast storm. The churn rate on members changing mac addresses is fairly low. I agree that we should automate the process so it can be done via self-service by the members. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:59 AM Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net<mailto:showard@paulbunyan.net>> wrote: > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > enforce this per-VLAN. > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > this to the board for a vote. > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > ----- > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i…<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i…> > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > settings as described here. > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io<mailto:jayhanke@southfront.io> Phone 612-204-0000 Confidentiality Notice: Information contained in this e-mail is being sent to you after appropriate authorization or by legal exception. You are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Re-disclosure without patient consent or as permitted by law is prohibited and may subject you to state and/or federal penalties. This information may also be legally privileged, the disclosure of which is governed by law. This information is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any access, disclosure, copying or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return or proof of destruction of the information contained in this message. ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system. ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system.

Nov. 3, 2022

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jeremy Lumby

I think the way to think about it was the damage was done in 2 seconds (according to the syslog), however the switch did not automatically recover from those 2 seconds. So we need a method that will react quicker than 2 seconds like a MAC ACL. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Tom Krenn Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2022 4:24 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only I don't know the config of the switch but out of curiosity, would storm control help mitigate the impact on the forwarding table? We might still have 2-3 seconds of disruption but it may avoid the manual intervention and let us keep the more dynamic port security approach. Tom Krenn Network Architect Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:12 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only The issue was a member port. The port security took 2 seconds to shutdown the port, however 100G of traffic looped and crashed the forwarding table on the main switch, forcing manual intervention. A static MAC ACL on each port would not have taken time to react. This is what the SIX has been doing on their ports since 2010 (as well as multiple other layers of security). From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Kittel, Brady Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:07 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only Was the source of the issue a remote switch? " To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remoteswitches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcingthe current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing thosesettings as described here." -Brady ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)SOUTHFRONT.IO> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:05:08 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only CAUTION: This email originated from outside of HCMC. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The error disable takes 1-2 seconds to clamp down and disable the port. This results in a short, but severe, broadcast storm. The churn rate on members changing mac addresses is fairly low. I agree that we should automate the process so it can be done via self-service by the members. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:59 AM Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > enforce this per-VLAN. > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > this to the board for a vote. > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > ----- > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: >https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i… <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i…> > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > settings as described here. > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho… <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000 Confidentiality Notice: Information contained in this e-mail is being sent to you after appropriate authorization or by legal exception. You are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Re-disclosure without patient consent or as permitted by law is prohibited and may subject you to state and/or federal penalties. This information may also be legally privileged, the disclosure of which is governed by law. This information is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any access, disclosure, copying or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return or proof of destruction of the information contained in this message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Nov. 2, 2022

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jeremy Lumby

That was a direct quote from Arista Support. Based on the context that it was used in I would say that means that the forwarding table stopped functioning and the default fallback is to flood everything. They recommended a software update since there were some forwarding table issues fixed in more recent versions, however they could not 100% guarantee the software update would provide complete protection. Arista Support pointed out how destabilizing a loop can be @ 100Gig even if it is only for the 2 seconds that we experienced before port security kicked in (especially with how much traffic an IX is carrying to flow through the loop). When talking with Chris @ the SIX he mentioned that they went to the static ACL method because the port security runs on the control plane, so it will always be slow. A MAC ACL runs on the ASIC so it is about as instantaneous as you are going to get. The port that caused the issue last week had a 1 MAC address limit on it through port security, and not through a MAC ACL. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Howard Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2022 4:59 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only What does "crashed the forwarding table" actually mean? Does that mean that the mac address table filled and the switch then flooded to all ports? Was there a mac address limit or a static MAC ACL on the port that caused the problem? On 10/31/22 09:12, Jeremy Lumby wrote: The issue was a member port. The port security took 2 seconds to shutdown the port, however 100G of traffic looped and crashed the forwarding table on the main switch, forcing manual intervention. A static MAC ACL on each port would not have taken time to react. This is what the SIX has been doing on their ports since 2010 (as well as multiple other layers of security). From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Kittel, Brady Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:07 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only Was the source of the issue a remote switch? " To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remoteswitches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcingthe current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing thosesettings as described here." -Brady --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MICE Discuss<MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jay Hanke<jayhanke(a)SOUTHFRONT.IO> <jayhanke(a)SOUTHFRONT.IO> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:05:08 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only CAUTION: This email originated from outside of HCMC. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The error disable takes 1-2 seconds to clamp down and disable the port. This results in a short, but severe, broadcast storm. The churn rate on members changing mac addresses is fairly low. I agree that we should automate the process so it can be done via self-service by the members. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:59 AM Steve Howard<showard(a)paulbunyan.net> <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > enforce this per-VLAN. > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > this to the board for a vote. > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > ----- > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: >https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i… > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > settings as described here. > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho… -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000 Confidentiality Notice: Information contained in this e-mail is being sent to you after appropriate authorization or by legal exception. You are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Re-disclosure without patient consent or as permitted by law is prohibited and may subject you to state and/or federal penalties. This information may also be legally privileged, the disclosure of which is governed by law. This information is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any access, disclosure, copying or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return or proof of destruction of the information contained in this message. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Nov. 2, 2022

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Steve Howard

Nov. 2, 2022

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Tom Krenn

I don't know the config of the switch but out of curiosity, would storm control help mitigate the impact on the forwarding table? We might still have 2-3 seconds of disruption but it may avoid the manual intervention and let us keep the more dynamic port security approach. Tom Krenn Network Architect Enterprise Architecture - Information Technology [Hennepin County logo] From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:12 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only The issue was a member port. The port security took 2 seconds to shutdown the port, however 100G of traffic looped and crashed the forwarding table on the main switch, forcing manual intervention. A static MAC ACL on each port would not have taken time to react. This is what the SIX has been doing on their ports since 2010 (as well as multiple other layers of security). From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Kittel, Brady Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:07 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only Was the source of the issue a remote switch? " To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those settings as described here." -Brady ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> on behalf of Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)SOUTHFRONT.IO<mailto:jayhanke@SOUTHFRONT.IO>> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:05:08 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only CAUTION: This email originated from outside of HCMC. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The error disable takes 1-2 seconds to clamp down and disable the port. This results in a short, but severe, broadcast storm. The churn rate on members changing mac addresses is fairly low. I agree that we should automate the process so it can be done via self-service by the members. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:59 AM Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net<mailto:showard@paulbunyan.net>> wrote: > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > enforce this per-VLAN. > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > this to the board for a vote. > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > ----- > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i…<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i…> > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > settings as described here. > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io<mailto:jayhanke@southfront.io> Phone 612-204-0000 Confidentiality Notice: Information contained in this e-mail is being sent to you after appropriate authorization or by legal exception. You are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Re-disclosure without patient consent or as permitted by law is prohibited and may subject you to state and/or federal penalties. This information may also be legally privileged, the disclosure of which is governed by law. This information is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any access, disclosure, copying or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return or proof of destruction of the information contained in this message. ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho…> Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system.

Nov. 2, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jay Hanke

Yes. The remote switch terms cover this for sharing a single MICE uplink. Also, when a problem arises, we can kill a port without doing a packet capture and only the offending member can be shut off. On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 3:23 PM David Farmer <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)lists.iphouse.net> wrote: > > And if we statically define the MAC to port mapping do we care? > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 3:01 PM Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)southfront.io> wrote: >> >> The hard limit is to keep someone from stacking networks behind a port. >> >> On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 2:58 PM David Farmer >> <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)lists.iphouse.net> wrote: >> > >> > Maybe we don't need to define a hard limit of 1 or 2, but only that the list needs to be static, as in not auto-detected but a defined list; the point is to be able to quash/filter unknown unicast traffic. >> > >> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 9:33 AM Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)southfront.io> wrote: >> >> >> >> What if we raised the maximum number of static mac addresses to 2 (to >> >> allow for migrations and to allow Jeremy to sleep) in the mac acl? >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:48 PM Mike Johnston <mjohnston(a)wiktel.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Well articulated, as always, David. Thank you. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > I am in favor of the use of static MAC ACL, even if that requires manual >> >> > changes to that ACL, and the additional coordination that may consume. >> >> > A few thoughts, though.... >> >> > >> >> > Maybe 1G links are exempt from this? Since a couple second switching >> >> > loop from a 1G port is not as impactful? ????? Thoughts from others, >> >> > please. >> >> > >> >> > Using a static MAC ACL could make troubleshooting a failure more >> >> > problematic. For example, replacing a line card to "see if that fixes >> >> > the issue" could send a tech down a trail of red hearings. Even if the >> >> > member is fully aware that they need to coordinate the MAC change, this >> >> > sort work is often being done in response to an unexpected outage. The >> >> > added time spend on the coordination could be seen as frustrating. But, >> >> > for some members it's not a big deal, and can use other links until >> >> > their MICE connectivity is restored. >> >> > >> >> > I've heard that some members are using a virtual MAC address, which is >> >> > probably the way to avoid needing to coordinate in the first place. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Jay Hanke, President >> >> South Front Networks >> >> jayhanke(a)southfront.io >> >> Phone 612-204-0000 >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > =============================================== >> > 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> Jay Hanke, President >> South Front Networks >> jayhanke(a)southfront.io >> Phone 612-204-0000 > > > > -- > =============================================== > 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 -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Nov. 2, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by David Farmer

And if we statically define the MAC to port mapping do we care? On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 3:01 PM Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)southfront.io> wrote: > The hard limit is to keep someone from stacking networks behind a port. > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 2:58 PM David Farmer > <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)lists.iphouse.net> wrote: > > > > Maybe we don't need to define a hard limit of 1 or 2, but only that the > list needs to be static, as in not auto-detected but a defined list; the > point is to be able to quash/filter unknown unicast traffic. > > > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 9:33 AM Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)southfront.io> wrote: > >> > >> What if we raised the maximum number of static mac addresses to 2 (to > >> allow for migrations and to allow Jeremy to sleep) in the mac acl? > >> > >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:48 PM Mike Johnston <mjohnston(a)wiktel.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> > Well articulated, as always, David. Thank you. > >> > > >> > > >> > I am in favor of the use of static MAC ACL, even if that requires > manual > >> > changes to that ACL, and the additional coordination that may consume. > >> > A few thoughts, though.... > >> > > >> > Maybe 1G links are exempt from this? Since a couple second switching > >> > loop from a 1G port is not as impactful? ????? Thoughts from others, > >> > please. > >> > > >> > Using a static MAC ACL could make troubleshooting a failure more > >> > problematic. For example, replacing a line card to "see if that fixes > >> > the issue" could send a tech down a trail of red hearings. Even if the > >> > member is fully aware that they need to coordinate the MAC change, > this > >> > sort work is often being done in response to an unexpected outage. > The > >> > added time spend on the coordination could be seen as frustrating. > But, > >> > for some members it's not a big deal, and can use other links until > >> > their MICE connectivity is restored. > >> > > >> > I've heard that some members are using a virtual MAC address, which is > >> > probably the way to avoid needing to coordinate in the first place. > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jay Hanke, President > >> South Front Networks > >> jayhanke(a)southfront.io > >> Phone 612-204-0000 > > > > > > > > -- > > =============================================== > > 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 > > > > -- > Jay Hanke, President > South Front Networks > jayhanke(a)southfront.io > Phone 612-204-0000 > -- =============================================== 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 ===============================================

Nov. 2, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jay Hanke

The hard limit is to keep someone from stacking networks behind a port. On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 2:58 PM David Farmer <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)lists.iphouse.net> wrote: > > Maybe we don't need to define a hard limit of 1 or 2, but only that the list needs to be static, as in not auto-detected but a defined list; the point is to be able to quash/filter unknown unicast traffic. > > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 9:33 AM Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)southfront.io> wrote: >> >> What if we raised the maximum number of static mac addresses to 2 (to >> allow for migrations and to allow Jeremy to sleep) in the mac acl? >> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:48 PM Mike Johnston <mjohnston(a)wiktel.com> wrote: >> > >> > Well articulated, as always, David. Thank you. >> > >> > >> > I am in favor of the use of static MAC ACL, even if that requires manual >> > changes to that ACL, and the additional coordination that may consume. >> > A few thoughts, though.... >> > >> > Maybe 1G links are exempt from this? Since a couple second switching >> > loop from a 1G port is not as impactful? ????? Thoughts from others, >> > please. >> > >> > Using a static MAC ACL could make troubleshooting a failure more >> > problematic. For example, replacing a line card to "see if that fixes >> > the issue" could send a tech down a trail of red hearings. Even if the >> > member is fully aware that they need to coordinate the MAC change, this >> > sort work is often being done in response to an unexpected outage. The >> > added time spend on the coordination could be seen as frustrating. But, >> > for some members it's not a big deal, and can use other links until >> > their MICE connectivity is restored. >> > >> > I've heard that some members are using a virtual MAC address, which is >> > probably the way to avoid needing to coordinate in the first place. >> >> >> >> -- >> Jay Hanke, President >> South Front Networks >> jayhanke(a)southfront.io >> Phone 612-204-0000 > > > > -- > =============================================== > 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 -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Nov. 2, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by David Farmer

Maybe we don't need to define a hard limit of 1 or 2, but only that the list needs to be static, as in not auto-detected but a defined list; the point is to be able to quash/filter unknown unicast traffic. On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 9:33 AM Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)southfront.io> wrote: > What if we raised the maximum number of static mac addresses to 2 (to > allow for migrations and to allow Jeremy to sleep) in the mac acl? > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:48 PM Mike Johnston <mjohnston(a)wiktel.com> > wrote: > > > > Well articulated, as always, David. Thank you. > > > > > > I am in favor of the use of static MAC ACL, even if that requires manual > > changes to that ACL, and the additional coordination that may consume. > > A few thoughts, though.... > > > > Maybe 1G links are exempt from this? Since a couple second switching > > loop from a 1G port is not as impactful? ????? Thoughts from others, > > please. > > > > Using a static MAC ACL could make troubleshooting a failure more > > problematic. For example, replacing a line card to "see if that fixes > > the issue" could send a tech down a trail of red hearings. Even if the > > member is fully aware that they need to coordinate the MAC change, this > > sort work is often being done in response to an unexpected outage. The > > added time spend on the coordination could be seen as frustrating. But, > > for some members it's not a big deal, and can use other links until > > their MICE connectivity is restored. > > > > I've heard that some members are using a virtual MAC address, which is > > probably the way to avoid needing to coordinate in the first place. > > > > -- > Jay Hanke, President > South Front Networks > jayhanke(a)southfront.io > Phone 612-204-0000 > -- =============================================== 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 ===============================================

Nov. 2, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jay Hanke

What if we raised the maximum number of static mac addresses to 2 (to allow for migrations and to allow Jeremy to sleep) in the mac acl? On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 12:48 PM Mike Johnston <mjohnston(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > > Well articulated, as always, David. Thank you. > > > I am in favor of the use of static MAC ACL, even if that requires manual > changes to that ACL, and the additional coordination that may consume. > A few thoughts, though.... > > Maybe 1G links are exempt from this? Since a couple second switching > loop from a 1G port is not as impactful? ????? Thoughts from others, > please. > > Using a static MAC ACL could make troubleshooting a failure more > problematic. For example, replacing a line card to "see if that fixes > the issue" could send a tech down a trail of red hearings. Even if the > member is fully aware that they need to coordinate the MAC change, this > sort work is often being done in response to an unexpected outage. The > added time spend on the coordination could be seen as frustrating. But, > for some members it's not a big deal, and can use other links until > their MICE connectivity is restored. > > I've heard that some members are using a virtual MAC address, which is > probably the way to avoid needing to coordinate in the first place. -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Nov. 2, 2022

Re: Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am?

by Jeremy Lumby

I have been told that they have replaced the same Juniper switch two different times, and the two different replacements keep showing the same errors as the original. This is corroborated with their MICE link coming up briefly twice since they originally rerouted. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of David Farmer Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 2:48 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am? Any word from Cloudflare? They will have been in re-routed mode for three weeks on Wednesday. They have theoretically completed two maintenance events since then; https://www.cloudflarestatus.com/incidents/txnkvw6frp25 https://www.cloudflarestatus.com/incidents/pqwsjx82wdt2 Thanks On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 11:08 AM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: Yes, the last time they had a failure in Minneapolis it took them just shy of 2 weeks to get back online. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Savoy Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 10:39 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am? I am pretty new to the CloudFlare peering. Anyone else go through the “Re-routed” scenario before? Will it eventually become “Operational”? Thank you, Steve From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of David Farmer Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 11:59 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am? If you check Cloudflare’s status page you will see Minneapolis is in “Re-routed” state. https://www.cloudflarestatus.com On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:45 Steve Savoy <stevesavoy(a)wctatel.com> wrote: Yes – ours went down at the same time. Steve From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Frank Bulk Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 10:42 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am? Both IPv4 and IPv6. I didn’t see any exceeding of prefix limits. Frank Oct 12 04:13:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net <http://sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net>) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 206.108.255.45 (AS13335.micemn.net <http://AS13335.micemn.net>) (AS 13335 CLOUDFLARENET, US) old state Established event HoldTime new state Idle Oct 12 04:13:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net <http://sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net>) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 2001:504:27::3417:0:1 (AS13335.micemn.net <http://AS13335.micemn.net>) (AS 13335 CLOUDFLARENET, US) old state Established event HoldTime new state Idle ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 Confidentiality Notice: This correspondence is the property of Winnebago Cooperative Telecom Association and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <Email%3Afarmer(a)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 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <Email%3Afarmer(a)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

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am?

by David Farmer

Any word from Cloudflare? They will have been in re-routed mode for three weeks on Wednesday. They have theoretically completed two maintenance events since then; https://www.cloudflarestatus.com/incidents/txnkvw6frp25 https://www.cloudflarestatus.com/incidents/pqwsjx82wdt2 Thanks On Thu, Oct 20, 2022 at 11:08 AM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Yes, the last time they had a failure in Minneapolis it took them just shy > of 2 weeks to get back online. > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] *On Behalf > Of *Steve Savoy > *Sent:* Thursday, October 20, 2022 10:39 AM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this > morning at 4:13 am? > > > > I am pretty new to the CloudFlare peering. Anyone else go through the > “Re-routed” scenario before? Will it eventually become “Operational”? > > > > Thank you, > > Steve > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> *On Behalf Of *David > Farmer > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 12, 2022 11:59 AM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this > morning at 4:13 am? > > > > If you check Cloudflare’s status page you will see Minneapolis is in > “Re-routed” state. > > > > https://www.cloudflarestatus.com > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:45 Steve Savoy <stevesavoy(a)wctatel.com> wrote: > > Yes – ours went down at the same time. > > > > Steve > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> *On Behalf Of *Frank > Bulk > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 12, 2022 10:42 AM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this > morning at 4:13 am? > > > > Both IPv4 and IPv6. I didn’t see any exceeding of prefix limits. > > > > Frank > > > > Oct 12 04:13:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) > SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 206.108.255.45 ( > AS13335.micemn.net) (AS 13335 CLOUDFLARENET, US) old state Established > event HoldTime new state Idle > > Oct 12 04:13:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) > SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 2001:504:27::3417:0:1 > (AS13335.micemn.net) (AS 13335 CLOUDFLARENET, US) old state Established > event HoldTime new state Idle > > > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > Confidentiality Notice: This correspondence is the property of Winnebago > Cooperative Telecom Association and is for the sole use of the intended > recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any > unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you > are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email > and destroy all copies of the original message. > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > 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 ===============================================

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Mike Johnston

Well articulated, as always, David. Thank you. I am in favor of the use of static MAC ACL, even if that requires manual changes to that ACL, and the additional coordination that may consume. A few thoughts, though.... Maybe 1G links are exempt from this? Since a couple second switching loop from a 1G port is not as impactful? ????? Thoughts from others, please. Using a static MAC ACL could make troubleshooting a failure more problematic. For example, replacing a line card to "see if that fixes the issue" could send a tech down a trail of red hearings. Even if the member is fully aware that they need to coordinate the MAC change, this sort work is often being done in response to an unexpected outage. The added time spend on the coordination could be seen as frustrating. But, for some members it's not a big deal, and can use other links until their MICE connectivity is restored. I've heard that some members are using a virtual MAC address, which is probably the way to avoid needing to coordinate in the first place.

Oct. 31, 2022

MICE - IXP Manager - Change Control Access

by Justin Krejci

Spinning off a new thread from the static/mac-limit/port-security conversation. The IXP Manager can generate an instruction command and makes it available to the Arista(s). The switch(es) could pull the config using a script that further sanitizes/validates the config its pulling before applying. This would prevent IXP Manager from having its own direct access to the switch. This could also be the case for pulling data from the switch(es) as well. Patterned after a TR-069 or similar concept, the switch could phone home to the IXP manager (once a minute cronjob for example) and see if there is anything the IXP manager wants done. A simple text based file (json, etc) is generated by the IXP manager and the Arista would then just query this file and parse out instructions and perform actions as instructed or ignore them if malformed or otherwise not allowed. Obviously this is would be only for Arista switch(es) managed by MICE. I don't have any IXP Manager experience beyond simple user but I know Arista can do this fairly easily. It could also just be a RESTful API even. Maybe something like this already exists I have no idea but I would highlight the two things this concept does 1: Allows IXP manager to affect change without direct access to the switch(es) 2: Allows the Arista switch(es) to ultimately decide to accept or ignore instructions to make config changes, send info, perform other actions like bounce my member port, apply TCP/179 filtering to my port, show me some log data, etc. This concept could also apply to the route servers too since they also run a *nix OS like Arista. This would not be a simple/quick idea but I feel would check various boxes for people: air gap, allows automation/self-service, and if automation fails it results in a fallback to manual only changes like we are doing today anyways, etc. Since I know MICE does have money, it could be dev work hired out to someone or a team to produce and then MICE retains rights to the resultant code. We have enough people across our membership that I am sure we could validate the code is sound and also perform bugfixes as needed going forward, perhaps even make it public, GPL style. Maybe IXP Manager already has some of this functionality? Last second additional thought, simple instructions (eg add a second MAC address, show me log data for my port) get automatically approved. Bigger changes (remove/change my MAC address, some other action) need to get some sort of manual approval by the tech team so it can be scrutinized first. None of this needs to be done in IXP Manager either but some other custom, purpose built web portal. Maybe I'm way overthinking this. Food for thought at any rate. -Justin

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by David Farmer

I have similar concerns as Andrew. However, I'm cognizant of Jeremy's concerns as well. Nevertheless, if we are going to fix our old problems, we have to be willing to accept that we are likely to create other new problems. The hard part is deciding if the old problems, the known problems, are worse than the potential new problems, the potentially unknown problems, and which of the potentially new problems we are willing to accept. We seem to have a consensus that this particular old problem needs to be addressed; what is not clear is if we have a consensus on accepting the potential new problems and which of those potential problems we are willing to accept. Note either way we are accepting new problems; we are either accepting potential new problems caused by the automation of IX Manager. Otherwise, we are accepting the potential new problems caused by a static MAC ACL list with only manual changes; I expect delays in changes primarily. Both options are going to produce problems. And if they are delays impacting one of the large content peers they could have as significant of an impact as the original problem we are trying to solve. Thanks On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 9:02 AM Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I disagree with static MAC address filtering unless we beef up operational > ability to change/adjust in a reasonable timeframe, or offer a self service > portal to do so (ie IXP Manager implementation first) > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 31, 2022, at 9:59 PM, Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE > Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems > to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of > Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC > address limit installed? > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > enforce this per-VLAN. > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > this to the board for a vote. > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > ----- > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants:https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/documentation/config-guide > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > settings as described here. > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > -- =============================================== 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 ===============================================

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Chris Wopat

Regarding the method of 'updating' the mac address list, there should probably be the ability to address maintenance, ie temporarily add a 2nd mac address to permit list. See SIX's faq. Unshore how handled internally, but one can email with a pending change (ie router replacement) to have 2 permitted for a period so maintenance can go smoothly. https://www.seattleix.net/faq -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jeremy Lumby

I like that idea -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:27 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only The switch access could be air-gapped. ie there could be a script that generates the new mac-address list and then it could be manually applied. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 9:22 AM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > I have mixed feelings about giving IXP manager access to the switch. The main reason is that if a member is proactive they can request the second MAC ahead of time, and it can be temporarily added for the transition. As it is most requests are processed in a couple hours. IXP manager is a program that none of the volunteers have a great grasp on, and lack of a timely security update on a portal that is made available to the entire internet in an invitation to get hacked. If it has direct access to the switch things can go wrong quickly. While I am concerned as it is about IXP manager having access to the route servers, they are an extra and not 100% necessary for the IX to function. > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:05 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only > > The error disable takes 1-2 seconds to clamp down and disable the > port. This results in a short, but severe, broadcast storm. > > The churn rate on members changing mac addresses is fairly low. > > I agree that we should automate the process so it can be done via > self-service by the members. > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:59 AM Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > > enforce this per-VLAN. > > > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > > this to the board for a vote. > > > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > > > ----- > > > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: > > https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/documentation/config-guide > > > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > > settings as described here. > > > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > 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, President > South Front Networks > jayhanke(a)southfront.io > Phone 612-204-0000 -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jay Hanke

Yes, that was the intention. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 9:26 AM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > I think the best way to phrase it is “static MAC ACL” applied to all member ports. There could be reasons to do static MAC entries in the forwarding table (so traffic does not flood when a large link drops) but we are not talking about that here/yet. > > > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Howard > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 8:59 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only > > > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > > enforce this per-VLAN. > > > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > > this to the board for a vote. > > > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > > > ----- > > > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: > > https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/documentation/config-guide > > > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > > settings as described here. > > > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > 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 -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jay Hanke

The switch access could be air-gapped. ie there could be a script that generates the new mac-address list and then it could be manually applied. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 9:22 AM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > I have mixed feelings about giving IXP manager access to the switch. The main reason is that if a member is proactive they can request the second MAC ahead of time, and it can be temporarily added for the transition. As it is most requests are processed in a couple hours. IXP manager is a program that none of the volunteers have a great grasp on, and lack of a timely security update on a portal that is made available to the entire internet in an invitation to get hacked. If it has direct access to the switch things can go wrong quickly. While I am concerned as it is about IXP manager having access to the route servers, they are an extra and not 100% necessary for the IX to function. > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:05 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only > > The error disable takes 1-2 seconds to clamp down and disable the > port. This results in a short, but severe, broadcast storm. > > The churn rate on members changing mac addresses is fairly low. > > I agree that we should automate the process so it can be done via > self-service by the members. > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:59 AM Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > > enforce this per-VLAN. > > > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > > this to the board for a vote. > > > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > > > ----- > > > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: > > https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/documentation/config-guide > > > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > > settings as described here. > > > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > 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, President > South Front Networks > jayhanke(a)southfront.io > Phone 612-204-0000 -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jeremy Lumby

I think the best way to phrase it is “static MAC ACL” applied to all member ports. There could be reasons to do static MAC entries in the forwarding table (so traffic does not flood when a large link drops) but we are not talking about that here/yet. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Howard Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 8:59 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, whichis still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example,enforce this per-VLAN. We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MACaddress, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that afterbeing contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in away to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the lastUG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposingthis to the board for a vote. I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. Ihave heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is infavor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. ----- I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs perport to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios andthis would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. Thisrestriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter beingknown for their excellent configuration guide for participants:https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/documentation/config-guide To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remoteswitches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcingthe current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing thosesettings as described here. If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flapon the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they aredirectly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. becausethey have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have toeither work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) toflap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's prettyminimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipmentswap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MACaddress in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I amnot proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, andeven that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change toa limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (oneIPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limitobviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. Ifthey're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancyout of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the portdefeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having aMAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flapthe port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for aport-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IPaddress set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IPaddress set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exceptionprocess would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despiteusing only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit tohowever many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, theywould be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the timeof this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix themultiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing aequipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage themto address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. Ifthey do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over.If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers touse only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that maycome up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for thepossibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, Iwould expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/orthe technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. Thegoal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabricwithout preventing networks from connecting. On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to behard filtered for a single static mac address per port. Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurredprior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jeremy Lumby

I have mixed feelings about giving IXP manager access to the switch. The main reason is that if a member is proactive they can request the second MAC ahead of time, and it can be temporarily added for the transition. As it is most requests are processed in a couple hours. IXP manager is a program that none of the volunteers have a great grasp on, and lack of a timely security update on a portal that is made available to the entire internet in an invitation to get hacked. If it has direct access to the switch things can go wrong quickly. While I am concerned as it is about IXP manager having access to the route servers, they are an extra and not 100% necessary for the IX to function. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:05 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only The error disable takes 1-2 seconds to clamp down and disable the port. This results in a short, but severe, broadcast storm. The churn rate on members changing mac addresses is fairly low. I agree that we should automate the process so it can be done via self-service by the members. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:59 AM Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > enforce this per-VLAN. > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > this to the board for a vote. > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > ----- > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: > https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/documentation/config-guide > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > settings as described here. > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > ________________________________ > > 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, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Chris Wopat

On 10/31/22 08:59, Steve Howard wrote: > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE > Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems > to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan > of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper > MAC address limit installed? > Quick note to consider. Yes, there should be a mac limit. Certain vendor hardware may restrict the way this is done - as in, some vendor kit may allow one to set a mac limit of 1 (to anything) and some may only permit static mac, and some may permit both. WiscNet's remote switch is currently set to static mac, this is because of a vendor change that prevented the mac limit from working. Forcing one way or the other may be difficult to achieve, but the limit should exist in some form. -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jay Hanke

No, the recent event was on the main switch. Historically, this has happened on most (if not all) of the MICE switches. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 9:07 AM Kittel, Brady <Brady.Kittel(a)hcmed.org> wrote: > > Was the source of the issue a remote switch? > > " > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > settings as described here." > > > -Brady > ________________________________ > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)SOUTHFRONT.IO> > Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:05:08 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of HCMC. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > The error disable takes 1-2 seconds to clamp down and disable the > port. This results in a short, but severe, broadcast storm. > > The churn rate on members changing mac addresses is fairly low. > > I agree that we should automate the process so it can be done via > self-service by the members. > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:59 AM Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > > enforce this per-VLAN. > > > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > > this to the board for a vote. > > > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > > > ----- > > > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: > > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i… > > > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > > settings as described here. > > > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho… > > > > -- > Jay Hanke, President > South Front Networks > jayhanke(a)southfront.io > Phone 612-204-0000 > > Confidentiality Notice: > > Information contained in this e-mail is being sent to you after appropriate authorization or by legal exception. You are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Re-disclosure without patient consent or as permitted by law is prohibited and may subject you to state and/or federal penalties. This information may also be legally privileged, the disclosure of which is governed by law. This information is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any access, disclosure, copying or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return or proof of destruction of the information contained in this message. > > > ________________________________ > > 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, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jeremy Lumby

The issue was a member port. The port security took 2 seconds to shutdown the port, however 100G of traffic looped crashed the forwarding table on the main switch, forcing manual intervention. A static MAC ACL on each port would not have taken time to react. This is what the SIX has been doing on their ports since 2010 (as well as multiple other layers of security). From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Kittel, Brady Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:07 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only Was the source of the issue a remote switch? " To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remoteswitches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcingthe current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing thosesettings as described here." -Brady ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)SOUTHFRONT.IO> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:05:08 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only CAUTION: This email originated from outside of HCMC. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The error disable takes 1-2 seconds to clamp down and disable the port. This results in a short, but severe, broadcast storm. The churn rate on members changing mac addresses is fairly low. I agree that we should automate the process so it can be done via self-service by the members. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:59 AM Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > enforce this per-VLAN. > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > this to the board for a vote. > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > ----- > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: >https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i… > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > settings as described here. > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho… -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000 Confidentiality Notice: Information contained in this e-mail is being sent to you after appropriate authorization or by legal exception. You are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Re-disclosure without patient consent or as permitted by law is prohibited and may subject you to state and/or federal penalties. This information may also be legally privileged, the disclosure of which is governed by law. This information is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any access, disclosure, copying or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return or proof of destruction of the information contained in this message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Kittel, Brady

Was the source of the issue a remote switch? " To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those settings as described here." -Brady ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)SOUTHFRONT.IO> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 9:05:08 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only CAUTION: This email originated from outside of HCMC. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. The error disable takes 1-2 seconds to clamp down and disable the port. This results in a short, but severe, broadcast storm. The churn rate on members changing mac addresses is fairly low. I agree that we should automate the process so it can be done via self-service by the members. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:59 AM Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > enforce this per-VLAN. > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > this to the board for a vote. > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > ----- > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ams-i… > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > settings as described here. > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flists.ipho… -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jay Hanke

The error disable takes 1-2 seconds to clamp down and disable the port. This results in a short, but severe, broadcast storm. The churn rate on members changing mac addresses is fairly low. I agree that we should automate the process so it can be done via self-service by the members. On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 8:59 AM Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > enforce this per-VLAN. > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > this to the board for a vote. > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > ----- > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: > https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/documentation/config-guide > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > settings as described here. > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > ________________________________ > > 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, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Andrew Hoyos

I disagree with static MAC address filtering unless we beef up operational ability to change/adjust in a reasonable timeframe, or offer a self service portal to do so (ie IXP Manager implementation first) Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 31, 2022, at 9:59 PM, Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC address limit installed? > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: >> The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. >> >> NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which >> is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, >> enforce this per-VLAN. >> >> We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC >> address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after >> being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a >> way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. >> >> On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: >>> We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last >>> UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing >>> this to the board for a vote. >>> >>> I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I >>> have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". >>> >>> Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in >>> favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. >>> >>> ----- >>> >>> I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per >>> port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and >>> this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This >>> restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being >>> known for their excellent configuration guide for participants: >>> https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/documentation/config-guide >>> >>> To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote >>> switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing >>> the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those >>> settings as described here. >>> >>> If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap >>> on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are >>> directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because >>> they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to >>> either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to >>> flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty >>> minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment >>> swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. >>> >>> For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC >>> address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am >>> not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and >>> even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to >>> a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. >>> >>> There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one >>> IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit >>> obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If >>> they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy >>> out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port >>> defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a >>> MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap >>> the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a >>> port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP >>> address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP >>> address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception >>> process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. >>> >>> There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite >>> using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to >>> however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they >>> would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time >>> of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the >>> multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a >>> equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them >>> to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If >>> they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. >>> If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. >>> >>> There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to >>> use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may >>> come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the >>> possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I >>> would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or >>> the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The >>> goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric >>> without preventing networks from connecting. >>> > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: >> I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be >> hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. >> >> Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred >> prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. >> > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Steve Howard

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Gary Glissendorf

I agree. Connections should be going into to routers but not everyone does that. Single Mac protects everyones traffic. Gary Glissendorf | Network Architect gary.glissendorf(a)sdncommunications.com -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Monday, October 31, 2022 8:27 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000 ***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.***

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jeremy Lumby

I second that proposal Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington MN 55425 Main 612-355-7740 Direct 612-392-6814 EFax 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com -------- Original message -------- From: Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)SOUTHFRONT.IO> Date: 10/31/22 8:27 AM (GMT-06:00) To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only _____ >From : Jay Hanke [jayhanke(a)SOUTHFRONT.IO] To : MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] Date : Monday, October 31 2022 08:27:14 I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Oct. 31, 2022

Proposal: MICE Static MAC address Only

by Jay Hanke

I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Oct. 31, 2022

Re: MICE RR #2 having issues..

by Jeremy Lumby

Looks like we had unicast flooding on the core Arista. I cleared the forwarding table, and levels look like they are going back to normal. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Friday, October 28, 2022 11:43 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE RR #2 having issues.. Around 11:30PM CDT tonight, 10/28/2022, the 2nd route-reflector at 206.108.255.2/2001:504:27:0:0:d1af::2 starting having huge packet loss (ie. 85%). The DRAC on this system stopped working a while ago, so I can't get in remotely to see what is up with it. If anybody is around Cologix this weekend that can power cycle the machine, it probably will set it right again. I'm guessing other people are seeing this as well, so putting out a note that this is known.

Oct. 29, 2022

MICE RR #2 having issues..

by Doug McIntyre

Around 11:30PM CDT tonight, 10/28/2022, the 2nd route-reflector at 206.108.255.2/2001:504:27:0:0:d1af::2 starting having huge packet loss (ie. 85%). The DRAC on this system stopped working a while ago, so I can't get in remotely to see what is up with it. If anybody is around Cologix this weekend that can power cycle the machine, it probably will set it right again. I'm guessing other people are seeing this as well, so putting out a note that this is known.

Oct. 29, 2022

Re: [OT] Calix GigaCenter Vulnerability

by Ryan Malek

*_Issue Summary_* Calix has identified a vulnerability on GigaCenters to a SOCKS proxy attack. *_Impact on Services_* The SOCKS proxy attack uses malicious service-blocking rules applied via HTTP API calls using the admin or support user credentials. This configuration causes the GigaCenter to download a SOCKS proxy server and execute a malicious script. It has been observed that the proxy listens on port 8111 and initiates or forwards huge amounts of data or DNS flows, causing CPU and memory exhaustion, resulting in WAN service impacts, and causes the 5G radio to crash. The port that is opened and set as the listening port by the malicious script is a variable, so it is possible that a different port could be used. The affected units do not recover from the 5G crash until a reboot is performed. *_Impacted Systems_* This issue impacts all GigaCenters(844E, 844G, 854G) systems. *_Recommended Action(s)_* * Run a workflow to disable remote access and update the admin and support credentials on all GigaCenters. As a best practice, different passwords should be used for the admin and support users. * On the upstream core router or edge routers, add an ACL to block inbound access to the port used by the SOCKS proxy. * Reboot affected GigaCenters with service impacts. Calix is currently working to identify how to best address GigaCenters which are already affected. Please stay tuned to this community post for more updates. Ryan Malek - Router12 Networks LLC Internet, Phone, and Hosted Services Ph. 641.420.7180 On 10/26/2022 7:06 PM, Brady Kittel wrote: > Richard, this link requires a login. > > On Wed, Oct 26, 2022, 6:28 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > > If you run Calix GigaCenters, they are being actively exploited. > > Some details here: > https://community.calix.com/s/feed/0D54u00009074nuCAA > > -- > Richard > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1> >

Oct. 27, 2022

Re: [OT] Calix GigaCenter Vulnerability

by Brady Kittel

Richard, this link requires a login. On Wed, Oct 26, 2022, 6:28 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > If you run Calix GigaCenters, they are being actively exploited. > > Some details here: https://community.calix.com/s/feed/0D54u00009074nuCAA > > -- > 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. 27, 2022

[OT] Calix GigaCenter Vulnerability

by Richard Laager

If you run Calix GigaCenters, they are being actively exploited. Some details here: https://community.calix.com/s/feed/0D54u00009074nuCAA -- Richard

Oct. 26, 2022

Please welcome Code42 Software to MICE!

by Jeremy Lumby

Name: Code42 Software Switch: MICE Core Port: E4/19 ASN: 396410 IPv4: This is an ASN change, all other info remains the same IPv6: Peering Contact: iops(a)code42.com Route Servers: Yes BFD: No Welcome Aboard Again! Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S #216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 Direct: 612-392-6814 Fax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

Oct. 21, 2022

Re: New MSP IX announced in EdgeConnex

by Chris Wopat

Marketing seems about right. Per the PR they're also joining us down here in Madison in an EdgeConnex facility (FGC) that probably won't get many real users, since the locals are on MadIX already in the closest to what we have to a carrier hotel (222). Perhaps just a 'deal' for space/power for NinjaIX to generate publicity to attract more people to these facilities.

Oct. 20, 2022

Re: New MSP IX announced in EdgeConnex

by Jeremy Lumby

If this was another situation I would say it was competition, however I think this is mostly an EdgeConnex marketing stunt. If MICE ever gets some real competition I think we need to ask what MICE can be doing to fill the void that the competition is trying to fill. For example Andrew mentioned connectivity outside of Cologix. Unless something has changed very recently that I am not aware of there is almost no one in EdgeConnex Minneapolis that is willing and able to peer on an IX. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Dean Bahls Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 10:46 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] New MSP IX announced in EdgeConnex I might be ignorant, but this seems like MICE competition to me....so not good for us. What am I missing? Dean -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 8:41 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] New MSP IX announced in EdgeConnex https://newswire.telecomramblings.com/2022/10/edgeconnex-expands-its-intern… -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Oct. 20, 2022

Re: New MSP IX announced in EdgeConnex

by Jay Hanke

> That seems like a low traffic volume at around 1.5Gbps per participant. According to my rough guess calculations, MICE is around 20Gbps per participant using marketing traffic values. Perhaps EdgeConneX doesn't know about using "marketing" values to report traffic loads. :-) The CDN mix at an IX really skews the per participant traffic numbers. Just a small number of members at MICE generate 80% of the inbound traffic.

Oct. 20, 2022

Re: Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am?

by Steve Savoy

Thanks for the reply Jeremy! From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 11:07 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am? Yes, the last time they had a failure in Minneapolis it took them just shy of 2 weeks to get back online. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Savoy Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 10:39 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am? I am pretty new to the CloudFlare peering. Anyone else go through the “Re-routed” scenario before? Will it eventually become “Operational”? Thank you, Steve From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> On Behalf Of David Farmer Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 11:59 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am? If you check Cloudflare’s status page you will see Minneapolis is in “Re-routed” state. https://www.cloudflarestatus.com On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:45 Steve Savoy <stevesavoy(a)wctatel.com<mailto:stevesavoy@wctatel.com>> wrote: Yes – ours went down at the same time. Steve From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> On Behalf Of Frank Bulk Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 10:42 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am? Both IPv4 and IPv6. I didn’t see any exceeding of prefix limits. Frank Oct 12 04:13:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net<http://sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net>) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 206.108.255.45 (AS13335.micemn.net<http://AS13335.micemn.net>) (AS 13335 CLOUDFLARENET, US) old state Established event HoldTime new state Idle Oct 12 04:13:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net<http://sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net>) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 2001:504:27::3417:0:1 (AS13335.micemn.net<http://AS13335.micemn.net>) (AS 13335 CLOUDFLARENET, US) old state Established event HoldTime new state Idle ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 Confidentiality Notice: This correspondence is the property of Winnebago Cooperative Telecom Association and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. ________________________________ 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<mailto:Email%3Afarmer@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 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 20, 2022

Re: Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am?

by Jeremy Lumby

Yes, the last time they had a failure in Minneapolis it took them just shy of 2 weeks to get back online. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Savoy Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 10:39 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am? I am pretty new to the CloudFlare peering. Anyone else go through the “Re-routed” scenario before? Will it eventually become “Operational”? Thank you, Steve From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of David Farmer Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 11:59 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am? If you check Cloudflare’s status page you will see Minneapolis is in “Re-routed” state. https://www.cloudflarestatus.com On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:45 Steve Savoy <stevesavoy(a)wctatel.com> wrote: Yes – ours went down at the same time. Steve From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Frank Bulk Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 10:42 AM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am? Both IPv4 and IPv6. I didn’t see any exceeding of prefix limits. Frank Oct 12 04:13:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net <http://sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net>) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 206.108.255.45 (AS13335.micemn.net <http://AS13335.micemn.net>) (AS 13335 CLOUDFLARENET, US) old state Established event HoldTime new state Idle Oct 12 04:13:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net <http://sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net>) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 2001:504:27::3417:0:1 (AS13335.micemn.net <http://AS13335.micemn.net>) (AS 13335 CLOUDFLARENET, US) old state Established event HoldTime new state Idle --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 Confidentiality Notice: This correspondence is the property of Winnebago Cooperative Telecom Association and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 <Email%3Afarmer(a)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

Oct. 20, 2022

Re: New MSP IX announced in EdgeConnex

by Andrew Hoyos

Competition and diversity are always a good thing. It means MSP is on the map enough to attract two IX’s, and offers an alternative outside of Cologix ecosystem for interconnection. Sent from my iPhone > On Oct 20, 2022, at 11:45 PM, Dean Bahls <dean.bahls(a)fiberminnesota.com> wrote: > I might be ignorant, but this seems like MICE competition to me....so not good for us. What am I missing? > > Dean > > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke > Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 8:41 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] New MSP IX announced in EdgeConnex > > https://newswire.telecomramblings.com/2022/10/edgeconnex-expands-its-intern… > > -- > Jay Hanke, President > South Front Networks > jayhanke(a)southfront.io > Phone 612-204-0000

Oct. 20, 2022

Re: New MSP IX announced in EdgeConnex

by Steve Howard

Oct. 20, 2022

Re: New MSP IX announced in EdgeConnex

by Dean Bahls

I might be ignorant, but this seems like MICE competition to me....so not good for us. What am I missing? Dean -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 8:41 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] New MSP IX announced in EdgeConnex https://newswire.telecomramblings.com/2022/10/edgeconnex-expands-its-intern… -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Oct. 20, 2022

Re: New MSP IX announced in EdgeConnex

by Aaron Wendel

Wow. Ninja-IX. Minneapolis is really stepping up it's game. Aaron On 10/20/2022 8:40 AM, Jay Hanke wrote: > https://newswire.telecomramblings.com/2022/10/edgeconnex-expands-its-intern… >

Oct. 20, 2022

Re: Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am?

by Steve Savoy

I am pretty new to the CloudFlare peering. Anyone else go through the “Re-routed” scenario before? Will it eventually become “Operational”? Thank you, Steve From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of David Farmer Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 11:59 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am? If you check Cloudflare’s status page you will see Minneapolis is in “Re-routed” state. https://www.cloudflarestatus.com On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 10:45 Steve Savoy <stevesavoy(a)wctatel.com<mailto:stevesavoy@wctatel.com>> wrote: Yes – ours went down at the same time. Steve From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> On Behalf Of Frank Bulk Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 10:42 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Anyone lose peering with CloudFlare this morning at 4:13 am? Both IPv4 and IPv6. I didn’t see any exceeding of prefix limits. Frank Oct 12 04:13:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net<http://sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net>) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 206.108.255.45 (AS13335.micemn.net<http://AS13335.micemn.net>) (AS 13335 CLOUDFLARENET, US) old state Established event HoldTime new state Idle Oct 12 04:13:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net<http://sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net>) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 2001:504:27::3417:0:1 (AS13335.micemn.net<http://AS13335.micemn.net>) (AS 13335 CLOUDFLARENET, US) old state Established event HoldTime new state Idle ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 Confidentiality Notice: This correspondence is the property of Winnebago Cooperative Telecom Association and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. ________________________________ 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<mailto:Email%3Afarmer@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

Oct. 20, 2022

Re: New MSP IX announced in EdgeConnex

by Jeff Wilde

That is cool Jeff Wilde • Network Engineer • Park Region Office 218.826.6161 • Direct 218.826.8330 • Fax 218.826.6298 -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2022 8:41 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] New MSP IX announced in EdgeConnex https://newswire.telecomramblings.com/2022/10/edgeconnex-expands-its-intern… -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Oct. 20, 2022

New MSP IX announced in EdgeConnex

by Jay Hanke

https://newswire.telecomramblings.com/2022/10/edgeconnex-expands-its-intern… -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Oct. 20, 2022