- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Zayo/Other?

by Ben Wiechman

OSP crews are being mobilized, splicers are engaged, cut is near lake crystal MN. No ETA Looks like there is an OTDR distance from the internal notes. Will need to locate specific location of the cut once crews arrive on site. Ben Wiechman Director of IP Strategy and Engineering Direct: 320.256.0184 Cell: 320.247.3224 ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com 150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com On Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 18:10 Ben Wiechman <ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com> wrote: > Fiber cut between Mankato and LaSalle is the word I have. Don't have much > more status information than that. Believe Zayo is still working to nail > down the location. > > Ben Wiechman > Director of IP Strategy and Engineering > Direct: 320.256.0184 > Cell: 320.247.3224 > ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com > 150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com > > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 18:01 James Urwiller < > james.urwiller(a)turnkey-telecom.com> wrote: > >> Did anyone else loose all MICE peers around 14:20 CST? I have a ticket >> open, but no response as of yet. >> >> >> >> James Urwiller >> >> Network Architect >> >> Stealth Broadband >> >> james.urwiller(a)stealthbroadband.com >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >> >

June 15, 2021

Re: Zayo/Other?

by Justin Krejci

Looking at the MICE weathermap, it looks like most everything is up. I believe there was a fiber cut around that time a bit south of Mankato. Might that be affecting you directly or indirectly? ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of James Urwiller <james.urwiller(a)TURNKEY-TELECOM.COM> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 6:01 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo/Other? Did anyone else loose all MICE peers around 14:20 CST? I have a ticket open, but no response as of yet. James Urwiller Network Architect Stealth Broadband james.urwiller(a)stealthbroadband.com<mailto:james.urwiller@stealthbroadband.com> [cid:image001.jpg@01D76147.3F9A7B60] ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://url-shield.securence.com/?p=1.0&r=jkrejci@usinternet.com&sid=162371…>

June 14, 2021

Re: Zayo/Other?

by Ben Wiechman

Fiber cut between Mankato and LaSalle is the word I have. Don't have much more status information than that. Believe Zayo is still working to nail down the location. Ben Wiechman Director of IP Strategy and Engineering Direct: 320.256.0184 Cell: 320.247.3224 ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com 150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com On Mon, Jun 14, 2021, 18:01 James Urwiller < james.urwiller(a)turnkey-telecom.com> wrote: > Did anyone else loose all MICE peers around 14:20 CST? I have a ticket > open, but no response as of yet. > > > > James Urwiller > > Network Architect > > Stealth Broadband > > james.urwiller(a)stealthbroadband.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

June 14, 2021

Re: Zayo/Other?

by Jeff Dahna

Our connections are down to MPLS via ZAYO. The latest update to our case: ZAYO NCC - Mon Jun 14 22:37:34 GMT 2021 Current Update: OSP has been engaged and crews are being mobilized and are headed to a suspected damage location in Lake Crystal MN. Underground crews and Splicers are engaged and are heading to this location. Once we have an ETA we will share it. More updates to follow. Jeff Dahna General Manager | City of Windom Telecom Dept-Windomnet | ASN46692 443 10th Street, PO Box 38 | Windom, MN 56101 Work Main: 507-832-8000 | Work Desk: 507-832-8680 jeff.dahna(a)windommn.com<mailto:jeff.dahna@windommn.com> | www.windomnet.com<http://www.windomnet.com/> Charter Member MN Public Broadband Alliance From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of James Urwiller Sent: Monday, June 14, 2021 6:01 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo/Other? Did anyone else loose all MICE peers around 14:20 CST? I have a ticket open, but no response as of yet. James Urwiller Network Architect Stealth Broadband james.urwiller(a)stealthbroadband.com<mailto:james.urwiller@stealthbroadband.com> [cid:image002.jpg@01D76148.1850B140] ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

June 14, 2021

Zayo/Other?

by James Urwiller

Did anyone else loose all MICE peers around 14:20 CST? I have a ticket open, but no response as of yet. James Urwiller Network Architect Stealth Broadband james.urwiller(a)stealthbroadband.com

June 14, 2021

Re: Please welcome T-Mobile to MICE!

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 05:41:11PM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: >Name: T-Mobile USA >Switch: 511 Main Switch >Port: Single LAG Group ports eth3/2/1, Ethernet6/9/1 (2x100G) >ASN: 21928 >IPv4: 206.108.255.179/24 >IPv6: 2001:504:27::55a8:0:1/64 >Peering Contact: NTSO-NISS(a)T-Mobile.com >Route Servers- Yes >BFD: NO Added to the route servers. Welcome!

June 10, 2021

Re: Please welcome T-Mobile to MICE!

by AnthonyAnderberg＠nuvera.net

Po41 , setting it up for them now. Cheers, anthony On 6/9/21, 10:31 PM, "MICE Discuss on behalf of Richard Laager" <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET on behalf of rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: On 6/9/21 5:41 PM, Jay Hanke wrote: > Name: T-Mobile USA > Switch: 511 Main Switch > Port: Single LAG Group ports eth3/2/1, Ethernet6/9/1 (2x100G) Website updated. I just need the Po interface number. -- Richard

June 10, 2021

Re: Please welcome T-Mobile to MICE!

by Richard Laager

On 6/9/21 5:41 PM, Jay Hanke wrote: > Name: T-Mobile USA > Switch: 511 Main Switch > Port: Single LAG Group ports eth3/2/1, Ethernet6/9/1 (2x100G) Website updated. I just need the Po interface number. -- Richard

June 10, 2021

Please welcome T-Mobile to MICE!

by Jay Hanke

Name: T-Mobile USA Switch: 511 Main Switch Port: Single LAG Group ports eth3/2/1, Ethernet6/9/1 (2x100G) ASN: 21928 IPv4: 206.108.255.179/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27::55a8:0:1/64 Peering Contact: NTSO-NISS(a)T-Mobile.com Route Servers- Yes BFD: NO Willkommen an Bord! -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

June 9, 2021

Re: PCH Port Move

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 11:11:43AM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: >PCH is moving their two pending port on the former IP House remote to >the MN VoIP remote switch. > >The ports are allocated as follows: > >AS42 >MN VoIP 10G Switch Eth26 >206.108.255.142 >2001:504:27:0:0:002a::1 > >AS3856 >MN VoIP 10G Switch Eth27 >206.108.255.143 >2001:504:27:0:0:0f10::1 > >MICE Tech- Could you verify the route server sessions are still in the >configuration? If not, add them? PCH never had anything going previously, but I've got things setup in the RRs for this setup now.

June 9, 2021

PCH Port Move

by Jay Hanke

PCH is moving their two pending port on the former IP House remote to the MN VoIP remote switch. The ports are allocated as follows: AS42 MN VoIP 10G Switch Eth26 206.108.255.142 2001:504:27:0:0:002a::1 AS3856 MN VoIP 10G Switch Eth27 206.108.255.143 2001:504:27:0:0:0f10::1 MICE Tech- Could you verify the route server sessions are still in the configuration? If not, add them? -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

June 9, 2021

Re: 511 Issues?

by Frank Bulk

From my notes: HTTPv6 to www.cloudflare.com has socket timeout from: ~4:14 to ~4:29 pm ~4:33 to ~4:38 pm BGP session to AWS via MICE down from 4:15 to 4:18 pm Qrator alerts Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 8:41 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] 511 Issues? We (mice) lost Amazon and Cloudflare peering in MSP this afternoon. We're also seeing intermittent hits on Arvig circuits to/from 511 for the last couple of hours (legacy Arvig not windstream, so it could be Zayo). On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 8:33 PM Corey Hauer <coreyhauer(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > There is an aerial Windstream fiber cut between Waterloo IA and 511. Replacement fiber is in place and awaiting new splice cases and splicing. > > Does that geography tie to the issues you see? > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 6:18 PM Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)southfront.io> wrote: >> >> Is there something going on at 511? >> >> We're seeing multiple networks on MICE down or degraded and an >> assortment of random issues. >> >> -- >> Jay Hanke, President >> South Front Networks >> jayhanke(a)southfront.io >> Phone 612-204-0000 > > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

June 3, 2021

EIDG Port Channel Converstion

by Jay Hanke

EIDG is upgrading to a 1x2x10G port channel on the SFN remote switch. Their new port is Ethernet15 -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

June 2, 2021

Re: 511 Issues?

by Jon Westlund

I am not seeing any obvious issues with our transport network Jay. We are getting ~90k routes from the MICE route reflector which is typical. We also lost both Amazon peers about 5 hours ago.. Do you have a specific circuit we can look at for example? Thanks, JW On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 8:41 PM Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)southfront.io> wrote: > We (mice) lost Amazon and Cloudflare peering in MSP this afternoon. > We're also seeing intermittent hits on Arvig circuits to/from 511 for > the last couple of hours (legacy Arvig not windstream, so it could be > Zayo). > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 8:33 PM Corey Hauer <coreyhauer(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > There is an aerial Windstream fiber cut between Waterloo IA and 511. > Replacement fiber is in place and awaiting new splice cases and splicing. > > > > Does that geography tie to the issues you see? > > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 6:18 PM Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)southfront.io> wrote: > >> > >> Is there something going on at 511? > >> > >> We're seeing multiple networks on MICE down or degraded and an > >> assortment of random issues. > >> > >> -- > >> Jay Hanke, President > >> South Front Networks > >> jayhanke(a)southfront.io > >> Phone 612-204-0000 > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > > > -- > Jay Hanke, President > South Front Networks > jayhanke(a)southfront.io > Phone 612-204-0000 > -- Jon Westlund Network Engineer Direct: 320.256.0229 Cell: 320.237.2386 jon.westlund(a)arvig.com 150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com

June 2, 2021

Re: 511 Issues?

by Jay Hanke

We (mice) lost Amazon and Cloudflare peering in MSP this afternoon. We're also seeing intermittent hits on Arvig circuits to/from 511 for the last couple of hours (legacy Arvig not windstream, so it could be Zayo). On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 8:33 PM Corey Hauer <coreyhauer(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > There is an aerial Windstream fiber cut between Waterloo IA and 511. Replacement fiber is in place and awaiting new splice cases and splicing. > > Does that geography tie to the issues you see? > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 6:18 PM Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)southfront.io> wrote: >> >> Is there something going on at 511? >> >> We're seeing multiple networks on MICE down or degraded and an >> assortment of random issues. >> >> -- >> Jay Hanke, President >> South Front Networks >> jayhanke(a)southfront.io >> Phone 612-204-0000 > > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

June 2, 2021

Re: 511 Issues?

by Corey Hauer

There is an aerial Windstream fiber cut between Waterloo IA and 511. Replacement fiber is in place and awaiting new splice cases and splicing. Does that geography tie to the issues you see? On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 6:18 PM Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)southfront.io> wrote: > Is there something going on at 511? > > We're seeing multiple networks on MICE down or degraded and an > assortment of random issues. > > -- > Jay Hanke, President > South Front Networks > jayhanke(a)southfront.io > Phone 612-204-0000 >

June 2, 2021

511 Issues?

by Jay Hanke

Is there something going on at 511? We're seeing multiple networks on MICE down or degraded and an assortment of random issues. -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

June 2, 2021

Re: HE upgrade to 1x2x100G

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 01:19:49PM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: >HE is adding one additional 100G port to their existing Port Channel 6 > >The new port is: > >MICE MAIN :: Ethernet6/5/1 > >This email will also serve as LOA/CFA. > >All IP information will remain the same. HE requested the upgrade take >place ASAP. I've configured the port and have added it to their existing port-channel 6. It is ready for them to crossconnect.

May 11, 2021

HE upgrade to 1x2x100G

by Jay Hanke

HE is adding one additional 100G port to their existing Port Channel 6 The new port is: MICE MAIN :: Ethernet6/5/1 This email will also serve as LOA/CFA. All IP information will remain the same. HE requested the upgrade take place ASAP. Welcome aboard! -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

May 11, 2021

Re: Link to all MICE peers dropped

by Frank Bulk

Thanks, everyone. FiberComm learned that there's some kind of transport issue between northwest Iowa and MICE. FiberComm's transport provider is aware and looking into it. Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 3:06 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Link to all MICE peers dropped yea You can look at the mice weathermap for these as well. Just don't post the graphs. :) On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 3:03 PM Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: > > Thanks, Jay. Anyone else? > Did FiberComm take a hit, too? We share much of our path together. > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke > Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 2:59 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Link to all MICE peers dropped > > Looks like Premier and Fibernet both took a hit about that time. > > On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:55 PM Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: > > > > Our link to all MICE peers dropped at 2:47:39 pm – anyone else see an outage and/or disruption? > > > > > > > > Frank > > > > AS18883 > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > 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

May 3, 2021

Re: Link to all MICE peers dropped

by Jay Hanke

yea You can look at the mice weathermap for these as well. Just don't post the graphs. :) On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 3:03 PM Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: > > Thanks, Jay. Anyone else? > Did FiberComm take a hit, too? We share much of our path together. > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke > Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 2:59 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Link to all MICE peers dropped > > Looks like Premier and Fibernet both took a hit about that time. > > On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:55 PM Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: > > > > Our link to all MICE peers dropped at 2:47:39 pm – anyone else see an outage and/or disruption? > > > > > > > > Frank > > > > AS18883 > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > 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

May 3, 2021

Re: Link to all MICE peers dropped

by Frank Bulk

Thanks, Jay. Anyone else? Did FiberComm take a hit, too? We share much of our path together. Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 2:59 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Link to all MICE peers dropped Looks like Premier and Fibernet both took a hit about that time. On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:55 PM Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: > > Our link to all MICE peers dropped at 2:47:39 pm – anyone else see an outage and/or disruption? > > > > Frank > > AS18883 > > > ________________________________ > > 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

May 3, 2021

Re: Link to all MICE peers dropped

by Steve Howard

May 3, 2021

Re: Link to all MICE peers dropped

by Jay Hanke

Looks like Premier and Fibernet both took a hit about that time. On Mon, May 3, 2021 at 2:55 PM Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: > > Our link to all MICE peers dropped at 2:47:39 pm – anyone else see an outage and/or disruption? > > > > Frank > > AS18883 > > > ________________________________ > > 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

May 3, 2021

Link to all MICE peers dropped

by Frank Bulk

Our link to all MICE peers dropped at 2:47:39 pm - anyone else see an outage and/or disruption? Frank AS18883

May 3, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Doug McIntyre

Yes, but I'll go do it again. That part of the config hasn't been changed since initial setup. On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 01:01:00PM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: >Has someone HUP’d it, yet? > >Frank > >From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos >Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:54 PM >To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th > >Same here. Perhaps the BFD daemon on rs2 needs to be HUP’d to pick up values in config file? > > > Detect Transmit >Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier >2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 Up xe-0/1/0.0 1.500 0.500 3 > Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 > Session up time 2w1d 16:53:02, previous down time 00:00:00 > Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None > Remote state Up, version 1 > Session type: Single hop BFD > Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 > Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 > Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 > Remote min TX interval 0.500, min RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 > Local discriminator 19, remote discriminator 2630753610 > Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 > > Detect Transmit >Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier >2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 Up xe-0/1/0.0 2.500 0.500 3 > Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 > Session up time 2w1d 16:52:42, previous down time 00:00:00 > Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None > Remote state Up, version 1 > Session type: Single hop BFD > Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 > Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 > Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 > Remote min TX interval 0.100, min RX interval 0.010, multiplier 5 > Local discriminator 20, remote discriminator 3118078092 > Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 > > > > > > >On Apr 27, 2021, at 12:27 PM, Justin Krejci <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM<mailto:JKrejci@USINTERNET.COM>> wrote: > >We are not getting identical BFD timers or multiplier values from RS1 and RS2. > >(added blank lines for readability) >usi-cr02-mpls#show bfd peers bfd interface ethernet24/1 detail | i ^Peer|^Received|^TxI >Peer Addr 206.108.255.1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up >TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 >Peer Addr 206.108.255.2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up >TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 >Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up >TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 >Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up >TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 > > > > >________________________________ >To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > >________________________________ > >To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 30, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Frank Bulk

Has someone HUP’d it, yet? Frank From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:54 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th Same here. Perhaps the BFD daemon on rs2 needs to be HUP’d to pick up values in config file? Detect Transmit Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 Up xe-0/1/0.0 1.500 0.500 3 Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Session up time 2w1d 16:53:02, previous down time 00:00:00 Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None Remote state Up, version 1 Session type: Single hop BFD Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Remote min TX interval 0.500, min RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Local discriminator 19, remote discriminator 2630753610 Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 Detect Transmit Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 Up xe-0/1/0.0 2.500 0.500 3 Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Session up time 2w1d 16:52:42, previous down time 00:00:00 Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None Remote state Up, version 1 Session type: Single hop BFD Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Remote min TX interval 0.100, min RX interval 0.010, multiplier 5 Local discriminator 20, remote discriminator 3118078092 Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 On Apr 27, 2021, at 12:27 PM, Justin Krejci <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM<mailto:JKrejci@USINTERNET.COM>> wrote: We are not getting identical BFD timers or multiplier values from RS1 and RS2. (added blank lines for readability) usi-cr02-mpls#show bfd peers bfd interface ethernet24/1 detail | i ^Peer|^Received|^TxI Peer Addr 206.108.255.1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 Peer Addr 206.108.255.2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 30, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Andrew Hoyos

Same here. Perhaps the BFD daemon on rs2 needs to be HUP’d to pick up values in config file? Detect Transmit Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 Up xe-0/1/0.0 1.500 0.500 3 Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Session up time 2w1d 16:53:02, previous down time 00:00:00 Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None Remote state Up, version 1 Session type: Single hop BFD Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Remote min TX interval 0.500, min RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Local discriminator 19, remote discriminator 2630753610 Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 Detect Transmit Address State Interface Time Interval Multiplier 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 Up xe-0/1/0.0 2.500 0.500 3 Client BGP, TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Session up time 2w1d 16:52:42, previous down time 00:00:00 Local diagnostic None, remote diagnostic None Remote state Up, version 1 Session type: Single hop BFD Min async interval 0.500, min slow interval 1.000 Adaptive async TX interval 0.500, RX interval 0.500 Local min TX interval 0.500, minimum RX interval 0.500, multiplier 3 Remote min TX interval 0.100, min RX interval 0.010, multiplier 5 Local discriminator 20, remote discriminator 3118078092 Echo mode disabled/inactive Session ID: 0x0 > On Apr 27, 2021, at 12:27 PM, Justin Krejci <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM> wrote: > > We are not getting identical BFD timers or multiplier values from RS1 and RS2. > > (added blank lines for readability) > usi-cr02-mpls#show bfd peers bfd interface ethernet24/1 detail | i ^Peer|^Received|^TxI > > Peer Addr 206.108.255.1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up > TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 > Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 > > Peer Addr 206.108.255.2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up > TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 > Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 > > Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up > TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 > Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 > > Peer Addr 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2, Intf Ethernet24/1, Type normal, State Up > TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 > Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1>

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Doug McIntyre

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

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Justin Krejci

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

April 27, 2021

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

by Chris Wopat

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

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Jeremy Lumby

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

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Richard Laager

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

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Doug McIntyre

micemn-01 protocol bfd { interface "bce1" { interval 500 ms; multiplier 3; passive; }; } micemn-02 protocol bfd { interface "bce1" { interval 500 ms; multiplier 3; passive; }; } On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 01:28:13PM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: >Are both MICE route reflectors configure to be 500 msec as of this moment? It appears that RR#2 is configured differently. > >Our router is stating that RR#2's Received RxInt is 10 msec: > >Apr 15 17:37:34 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) Bfd: %BFD-5-INCOMPATIBLE_RX_INTERVAL: Received a BFD rx interval from peer (vrf:default, ip:206.108.255.2 (AS53679-MRS-2.micemn.net) intf:Port-Channel2, srcIp:0.0.0.0, type:normal) of 10 milliseconds, outside of the supported range of 50-60000 milliseconds. (message repeated 3 times in 1.18783e+06 secs) > > >SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista(s2)#show bfd neighbors interface port-Channel 2 detail >VRF name: default >----------------- >Peer Addr 206.108.255.1, Intf Port-Channel2, Type normal, State Up >VRF default, LAddr 206.108.255.133, LD/RD 3460049634/334592880 >Session state is Up and not using echo function >Last Up Apr 24 12:11:36 2021 >Last Down Apr 24 12:11:33 2021 >Last Diag: No Diagnostic >TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 >Rx Count: 595169, Rx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 340/482/412 last: 632 ms ago >Tx Count: 566334, Tx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 371/496/433 last: 632 ms ago >Detect Time: 1500 >Sched Delay: 1*TxInt: 20967555, 2*TxInt: 4570, 3*TxInt: 0, GT 3*TxInt: 0 >Registered protocols: bgp >Uptime: 2 days, 20:11:34.74 >Last packet: Version: 1 - Diagnostic: 0 > State bit: Up - Demand bit: 0 > Poll bit: 0 - Final bit: 0 > Multiplier: 3 - Length: 24 > My Discr.: 334592880 - Your Discr.: 3460049634 > Min tx interval: 500 - Min rx interval: 500 > Min Echo interval: 0 > >Peer Addr 206.108.255.2, Intf Port-Channel2, Type normal, State Up >VRF default, LAddr 206.108.255.133, LD/RD 301505937/1393863972 >Session state is Up and not using echo function >Last Up Apr 24 12:11:37 2021 >Last Down Apr 24 12:11:33 2021 >Last Diag: No Diagnostic >TxInt: 300, RxInt: 300, Multiplier: 3 >Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 >Rx Count: 991837, Rx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 194/480/247 last: 634 ms ago >Tx Count: 949660, Tx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 219/296/258 last: 634 ms ago >Detect Time: 1500 >Sched Delay: 1*TxInt: 35149798, 2*TxInt: 13194, 3*TxInt: 0, GT 3*TxInt: 0 >Registered protocols: bgp >Uptime: 2 days, 20:11:34.27 >Last packet: Version: 1 - Diagnostic: 0 > State bit: Up - Demand bit: 0 > Poll bit: 0 - Final bit: 0 > Multiplier: 5 - Length: 24 > My Discr.: 1393863972 - Your Discr.: 301505937 > Min tx interval: 100 - Min rx interval: 10 > Min Echo interval: 0 > >SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista(s2)# > >Frank > >-----Original Message----- >From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre >Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:01 AM >To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th > >So, you're looking to lower it from 500ms down to 50ms when most of >the recomendations are a bottom limit of 150ms? > >On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:37:52AM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: >>So can we change the route reflectors to use 50 msec? >> >>Frank >> >>From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Ben Wiechman >>Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:47 PM >>To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th >> >>IOS-XR bottoms out at 15ms. IOS/XE has typically been 150ms. >> >>Agreed that in general unless you have <50ms failover requirements 150ms+ is probably a good compromise. >> >>Ben Wiechman >>Director of IP Strategy and Engineering >>Direct: 320.256.0184 >>Cell: 320.247.3224 >>ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com<mailto:ben.wiechman@arvig.com> >>150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com<http://arvig.com> >> >>On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 17:57 Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>> wrote: >>On Apr 21, 2021, at 5:52 PM, David Farmer <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> wrote: >> >>On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:36 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com<mailto:rlaager@wiktel.com>> wrote: >>On 4/21/21 3:04 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: >>> And to follow up on my previous question, is Arista falling bit short in >>> our situation, by not supporting a receive interval of 10 msec? >> >>I've had a couple vendors suggest not to make it that short. Brocade, >>for example, suggested 150 ms as a minimum. Arista was more vague, but >>from your error message, apparently their implementation doesn't even >>try to do less than 50 ms. >> >>Maybe think about this from another perspective, 10 ms is 100 times a second, 50 ms is 20 times a second, and 150 ms just over 6 times a second. I think 10 ms is probably being a little impatient. >> >>Not the mention, the added CPU load on both ends dealing with said BFD packets 100x/sec. >> >>We’ve generally seen 50-250ms used in practice. 10ms does seem super aggressive. We use 250ms x 3 here for backbone links and peers/transit that support BFD, and 750ms x 3 facing internal gear. >> >> >>— >>Andrew Hoyos >>hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >>________________________________ >> >>To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >>http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >> >>________________________________ >> >>To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >>http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Frank Bulk

Are both MICE route reflectors configure to be 500 msec as of this moment? It appears that RR#2 is configured differently. Our router is stating that RR#2's Received RxInt is 10 msec: Apr 15 17:37:34 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) Bfd: %BFD-5-INCOMPATIBLE_RX_INTERVAL: Received a BFD rx interval from peer (vrf:default, ip:206.108.255.2 (AS53679-MRS-2.micemn.net) intf:Port-Channel2, srcIp:0.0.0.0, type:normal) of 10 milliseconds, outside of the supported range of 50-60000 milliseconds. (message repeated 3 times in 1.18783e+06 secs) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista(s2)#show bfd neighbors interface port-Channel 2 detail VRF name: default ----------------- Peer Addr 206.108.255.1, Intf Port-Channel2, Type normal, State Up VRF default, LAddr 206.108.255.133, LD/RD 3460049634/334592880 Session state is Up and not using echo function Last Up Apr 24 12:11:36 2021 Last Down Apr 24 12:11:33 2021 Last Diag: No Diagnostic TxInt: 500, RxInt: 500, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 500, Received Multiplier: 3 Rx Count: 595169, Rx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 340/482/412 last: 632 ms ago Tx Count: 566334, Tx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 371/496/433 last: 632 ms ago Detect Time: 1500 Sched Delay: 1*TxInt: 20967555, 2*TxInt: 4570, 3*TxInt: 0, GT 3*TxInt: 0 Registered protocols: bgp Uptime: 2 days, 20:11:34.74 Last packet: Version: 1 - Diagnostic: 0 State bit: Up - Demand bit: 0 Poll bit: 0 - Final bit: 0 Multiplier: 3 - Length: 24 My Discr.: 334592880 - Your Discr.: 3460049634 Min tx interval: 500 - Min rx interval: 500 Min Echo interval: 0 Peer Addr 206.108.255.2, Intf Port-Channel2, Type normal, State Up VRF default, LAddr 206.108.255.133, LD/RD 301505937/1393863972 Session state is Up and not using echo function Last Up Apr 24 12:11:37 2021 Last Down Apr 24 12:11:33 2021 Last Diag: No Diagnostic TxInt: 300, RxInt: 300, Multiplier: 3 Received RxInt: 10, Received Multiplier: 5 Rx Count: 991837, Rx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 194/480/247 last: 634 ms ago Tx Count: 949660, Tx Interval (ms) min/max/avg: 219/296/258 last: 634 ms ago Detect Time: 1500 Sched Delay: 1*TxInt: 35149798, 2*TxInt: 13194, 3*TxInt: 0, GT 3*TxInt: 0 Registered protocols: bgp Uptime: 2 days, 20:11:34.27 Last packet: Version: 1 - Diagnostic: 0 State bit: Up - Demand bit: 0 Poll bit: 0 - Final bit: 0 Multiplier: 5 - Length: 24 My Discr.: 1393863972 - Your Discr.: 301505937 Min tx interval: 100 - Min rx interval: 10 Min Echo interval: 0 SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista(s2)# Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 12:01 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th So, you're looking to lower it from 500ms down to 50ms when most of the recomendations are a bottom limit of 150ms? On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:37:52AM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: >So can we change the route reflectors to use 50 msec? > >Frank > >From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Ben Wiechman >Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:47 PM >To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th > >IOS-XR bottoms out at 15ms. IOS/XE has typically been 150ms. > >Agreed that in general unless you have <50ms failover requirements 150ms+ is probably a good compromise. > >Ben Wiechman >Director of IP Strategy and Engineering >Direct: 320.256.0184 >Cell: 320.247.3224 >ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com<mailto:ben.wiechman@arvig.com> >150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com<http://arvig.com> > >On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 17:57 Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>> wrote: >On Apr 21, 2021, at 5:52 PM, David Farmer <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:36 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com<mailto:rlaager@wiktel.com>> wrote: >On 4/21/21 3:04 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: >> And to follow up on my previous question, is Arista falling bit short in >> our situation, by not supporting a receive interval of 10 msec? > >I've had a couple vendors suggest not to make it that short. Brocade, >for example, suggested 150 ms as a minimum. Arista was more vague, but >from your error message, apparently their implementation doesn't even >try to do less than 50 ms. > >Maybe think about this from another perspective, 10 ms is 100 times a second, 50 ms is 20 times a second, and 150 ms just over 6 times a second. I think 10 ms is probably being a little impatient. > >Not the mention, the added CPU load on both ends dealing with said BFD packets 100x/sec. > >We’ve generally seen 50-250ms used in practice. 10ms does seem super aggressive. We use 250ms x 3 here for backbone links and peers/transit that support BFD, and 750ms x 3 facing internal gear. > > >— >Andrew Hoyos >hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com> > > > > >________________________________ > >To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > >________________________________ > >To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Richard Laager

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

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Doug McIntyre

So, you're looking to lower it from 500ms down to 50ms when most of the recomendations are a bottom limit of 150ms? On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 02:37:52AM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: >So can we change the route reflectors to use 50 msec? > >Frank > >From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Ben Wiechman >Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:47 PM >To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th > >IOS-XR bottoms out at 15ms. IOS/XE has typically been 150ms. > >Agreed that in general unless you have <50ms failover requirements 150ms+ is probably a good compromise. > >Ben Wiechman >Director of IP Strategy and Engineering >Direct: 320.256.0184 >Cell: 320.247.3224 >ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com<mailto:ben.wiechman@arvig.com> >150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com<http://arvig.com> > >On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 17:57 Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>> wrote: >On Apr 21, 2021, at 5:52 PM, David Farmer <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:36 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com<mailto:rlaager@wiktel.com>> wrote: >On 4/21/21 3:04 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: >> And to follow up on my previous question, is Arista falling bit short in >> our situation, by not supporting a receive interval of 10 msec? > >I've had a couple vendors suggest not to make it that short. Brocade, >for example, suggested 150 ms as a minimum. Arista was more vague, but >from your error message, apparently their implementation doesn't even >try to do less than 50 ms. > >Maybe think about this from another perspective, 10 ms is 100 times a second, 50 ms is 20 times a second, and 150 ms just over 6 times a second. I think 10 ms is probably being a little impatient. > >Not the mention, the added CPU load on both ends dealing with said BFD packets 100x/sec. > >We’ve generally seen 50-250ms used in practice. 10ms does seem super aggressive. We use 250ms x 3 here for backbone links and peers/transit that support BFD, and 750ms x 3 facing internal gear. > > >— >Andrew Hoyos >hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com> > > > > >________________________________ > >To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > >________________________________ > >To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 27, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Frank Bulk

So can we change the route reflectors to use 50 msec? Frank From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Ben Wiechman Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 8:47 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th IOS-XR bottoms out at 15ms. IOS/XE has typically been 150ms. Agreed that in general unless you have <50ms failover requirements 150ms+ is probably a good compromise. Ben Wiechman Director of IP Strategy and Engineering Direct: 320.256.0184 Cell: 320.247.3224 ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com<mailto:ben.wiechman@arvig.com> 150 Second Street SW | Perham, MN 56573 | arvig.com<http://arvig.com> On Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 17:57 Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>> wrote: On Apr 21, 2021, at 5:52 PM, David Farmer <0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:0000000e7948cb21-dmarc-request@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> wrote: On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 5:36 PM Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com<mailto:rlaager@wiktel.com>> wrote: On 4/21/21 3:04 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > And to follow up on my previous question, is Arista falling bit short in > our situation, by not supporting a receive interval of 10 msec? I've had a couple vendors suggest not to make it that short. Brocade, for example, suggested 150 ms as a minimum. Arista was more vague, but from your error message, apparently their implementation doesn't even try to do less than 50 ms. Maybe think about this from another perspective, 10 ms is 100 times a second, 50 ms is 20 times a second, and 150 ms just over 6 times a second. I think 10 ms is probably being a little impatient. Not the mention, the added CPU load on both ends dealing with said BFD packets 100x/sec. We’ve generally seen 50-250ms used in practice. 10ms does seem super aggressive. We use 250ms x 3 here for backbone links and peers/transit that support BFD, and 750ms x 3 facing internal gear. — Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

April 27, 2021

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

by Dean Bahls

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

April 26, 2021

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

by Jay Hanke

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

April 26, 2021

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

by Richard Laager

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

April 26, 2021

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

by Jesse Reed

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

April 26, 2021

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

by Jay Hanke

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

April 26, 2021

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

by Dean Bahls

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

April 26, 2021

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

by Jay Hanke

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

April 26, 2021

Old/Stale Infrastructure information - IXP Dashboard / AcenTek

by Jesse Reed

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

April 26, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Ben Wiechman

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

April 22, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Andrew Hoyos

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

April 21, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by David Farmer

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

April 21, 2021

Re: Zayo Belle Plaine - April 15th

by Richard Laager

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

April 21, 2021