- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: BFD support on BGP sessions

by Richard Laager

Is it implied that BFD is always for bi-lateral sessions only? Or do some routers allow configuring BFD separately from BGP in some useful way? (I don't think mine do.) Colin, does Supranet support BFD for both AS4150 and AS5683, or just the former? -- Richard

Oct. 5, 2016

Re: BFD support on BGP sessions

by Michael Hare

Call it a Madison thing; AS 3128 would also like to BFD peer with interested parties. I like Andrew's "Y/N" column idea. -Michael -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Colin Baker Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 4:21 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] BFD support on BGP sessions On 04.10.2016 16:09, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > +1 to this. We (AS53597) will happy enable BFD to anyone that > supports. Shoot us an email at noc(a)hoyosconsulting.com. > > Perhaps we can add a column to the participants page for a Y/N flag > there? > Meee tooo Email peering(a)supranet.net (AS4150) and we'll be happy to get this added. -- Colin Baker SupraNet Communications, Inc. (608) 572-7634 colinb(a)supranet.net This message is subject to the SupraNet Email Confidentiality Policy which is located at http://supranet.net/confidentiality

Oct. 5, 2016

Re: Maintenance Complete

by Jeremy Lumby

For the time being all of the ge-1/x/x ports are completely disconnected, and can be removed from the list, however sometime in the future, I would like to stack it with the new 4200, and in that case, the ge-1/x/x ports will come back mostly for new members, or if we need to free up some 10G ports since we are currently forced to use 5 of them for 1G connections. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 6:45 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Maintenance Complete On 10/04/2016 03:32 PM, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > It appears to happened when the old 4200 was removed from the VC So the old 4200 is gone and I should remove all the ge-1/x/x ports from the participants list? -- Richard

Oct. 5, 2016

Re: Maintenance Complete

by Richard Laager

On 10/04/2016 03:32 PM, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > It appears to happened when the old 4200 was removed from the VC So the old 4200 is gone and I should remove all the ge-1/x/x ports from the participants list? -- Richard

Oct. 4, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Rob Mosher

Sending the same routes to RS1 now as well -- Rob Mosher Senior Network and Software Engineer Hurricane Electric / AS6939 On 10/4/2016 4:56 PM, Rob Mosher wrote: > We're now announcing just over 38k routes to RS2. I'll be sending the > same set to RS1 shortly unless there are any objections. > -- > Rob Mosher > Senior Network and Software Engineer > Hurricane Electric / AS6939 > On 9/28/2016 3:49 PM, Rob Mosher wrote: >> Negative. We announce our full set of IPv6 routes currently. >> -- >> Rob Mosher >> Senior Network and Software Engineer >> Hurricane Electric / AS6939 >> On 9/28/2016 3:48 PM, Justin Krejci wrote: >>> Will there be any changes to IPv6 prefix counts to/from the route >>> servers? >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *From:* MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of >>> Reid Fishler [rfishler(a)HE.NET] >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 28, 2016 1:49 PM >>> *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>> *Subject:* [MICE-DISCUSS] Hurricane and route servers >>> >>> Hurricane will begin to send routes to the route servers within the >>> next few days. Approximately 40k routes will be sent, so watch >>> your filters! Happy peering! >>> >>> Reid >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >>> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >>> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >>> >> >

Oct. 4, 2016

Re: BFD support on BGP sessions

by Jason Hanke

I believe BFD support is pretty new on BIRD. Is anyone aware of other IXs running BFD with Bird? On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Colin Baker <colinb(a)supranet.net> wrote: > On 04.10.2016 16:09, Andrew Hoyos wrote: >> >> +1 to this. We (AS53597) will happy enable BFD to anyone that >> supports. Shoot us an email at noc(a)hoyosconsulting.com. >> >> Perhaps we can add a column to the participants page for a Y/N flag there? >> > > Meee tooo > > Email peering(a)supranet.net (AS4150) and we'll be happy to get this added. > > -- > Colin Baker > SupraNet Communications, Inc. > (608) 572-7634 > colinb(a)supranet.net > > This message is subject to the SupraNet Email Confidentiality Policy > which is located at http://supranet.net/confidentiality -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Oct. 4, 2016

Re: BFD support on BGP sessions

by Colin Baker

On 04.10.2016 16:09, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > +1 to this. We (AS53597) will happy enable BFD to anyone that > supports. Shoot us an email at noc(a)hoyosconsulting.com. > > Perhaps we can add a column to the participants page for a Y/N flag > there? > Meee tooo Email peering(a)supranet.net (AS4150) and we'll be happy to get this added. -- Colin Baker SupraNet Communications, Inc. (608) 572-7634 colinb(a)supranet.net This message is subject to the SupraNet Email Confidentiality Policy which is located at http://supranet.net/confidentiality

Oct. 4, 2016

Re: BFD support on BGP sessions

by Andrew Hoyos

+1 to this. We (AS53597) will happy enable BFD to anyone that supports. Shoot us an email at noc(a)hoyosconsulting.com. Perhaps we can add a column to the participants page for a Y/N flag there? -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Oct 4, 2016, at 4:03 PM, Chris Wopat <wopat(a)wiscnet.net> wrote: > > Topical to today's issues, WiscNet (and likely others) actively utilize BFD on EBGP peering sessions across peering fabric on various IX's where possible. > > This helps by detecting issues across layer2 paths without having to wait for the BGP hold time to expire. > > If anyone would like to enable BFD on our direct sessions, please reach out to us at peering(a)wiscnet.net, or to me directly. > > We use minimum-interval 500, multiplier 3 at various IX's with little issue. > > Cheers, > -- > Chris Wopat > Network Engineer, WiscNet > wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Oct. 4, 2016

BFD support on BGP sessions

by Chris Wopat

Topical to today's issues, WiscNet (and likely others) actively utilize BFD on EBGP peering sessions across peering fabric on various IX's where possible. This helps by detecting issues across layer2 paths without having to wait for the BGP hold time to expire. If anyone would like to enable BFD on our direct sessions, please reach out to us at peering(a)wiscnet.net, or to me directly. We use minimum-interval 500, multiplier 3 at various IX's with little issue. Cheers, -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Oct. 4, 2016

Re: Maintenance Complete

by Chris Wopat

On 10/04/2016 03:54 PM, anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net wrote: > Our looking glass is at route-server.micemn.net > Use ssh or telnet with the username: rviews Thank you. I didn't find this listed on the website directly, I may have missed it. > We don't have any RO/proxy interfaces to the switches or route > servers directly. This may be useful to have. There are a few open projects out there that actually have recent updates, although I haven't used enough recent ones to endorse https://github.com/GlobalNOC/routerproxy http://mrlg.op-sec.us/ https://github.com/telephone/LookingGlass .. and likely a lot more. -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Oct. 4, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 04:56:23PM -0400, Rob Mosher wrote: > We're now announcing just over 38k routes to RS2. I'll be sending the same > set to RS1 shortly unless there are any objections. Indeed.. $ birdc show route | fgrep -c NASN_6939 38084 -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 4, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Rob Mosher

We're now announcing just over 38k routes to RS2. I'll be sending the same set to RS1 shortly unless there are any objections. -- Rob Mosher Senior Network and Software Engineer Hurricane Electric / AS6939 On 9/28/2016 3:49 PM, Rob Mosher wrote: > Negative. We announce our full set of IPv6 routes currently. > -- > Rob Mosher > Senior Network and Software Engineer > Hurricane Electric / AS6939 > On 9/28/2016 3:48 PM, Justin Krejci wrote: >> Will there be any changes to IPv6 prefix counts to/from the route >> servers? >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of >> Reid Fishler [rfishler(a)HE.NET] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 28, 2016 1:49 PM >> *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> *Subject:* [MICE-DISCUSS] Hurricane and route servers >> >> Hurricane will begin to send routes to the route servers within the >> next few days. Approximately 40k routes will be sent, so watch your >> filters! Happy peering! >> >> Reid >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >> >

Oct. 4, 2016

Re: Maintenance Complete

by anthonyanderberg＠nu-telecom.net

Our looking glass is at route-server.micemn.net Use ssh or telnet with the username: rviews We don't have any RO/proxy interfaces to the switches or route servers directly. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Chris Wopat Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 3:39 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Maintenance Complete On 10/04/2016 03:32 PM, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > It appears to happened when the old 4200 was removed from the VC http://micelg.usinternet.com/export/graph_385.html Is there a looking glass/router proxy that exists somewhere that would allow MICE participants that do not have login credentials to switches to do some troubleshooting? That with a limited set of commands (show interface, show virtual-chassis, etc) OR a read only account could perhaps be quite useful for the community. -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Oct. 4, 2016

Re: Maintenance Complete

by Chris Wopat

On 10/04/2016 03:32 PM, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > It appears to happened when the old 4200 was removed from the VC http://micelg.usinternet.com/export/graph_385.html Is there a looking glass/router proxy that exists somewhere that would allow MICE participants that do not have login credentials to switches to do some troubleshooting? That with a limited set of commands (show interface, show virtual-chassis, etc) OR a read only account could perhaps be quite useful for the community. -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Oct. 4, 2016

Re: Maintenance Complete

by Jeremy Lumby

It appears to happened when the old 4200 was removed from the VC -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 3:29 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Maintenance Complete > On Oct 4, 2016, at 3:02 PM, Chris Wopat <wopat(a)wiscnet.net> wrote: > > On 10/04/2016 02:56 PM, Jeremy Lumby wrote: >> I have completed the maintenance of moving everyone off of the old 4200, and onto the new one. Please let me know if you have any issues, I will be staying around 511 for a little while in the event that you do. I pinged each interface IP as I moved it to verify it pinged, then dropped, and then picked back up again once it was in the new switch. > > All of our peering sessions went down at about 14:45. We (AS53597) also lost *all* of our sessions, and shouldn’t have been affected by this in theory. Did something happen to the VC fabric to break it while the maintenance was happening? I mean, hold timers are 90 sec on most of these sessions. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Oct. 4, 2016

Re: Maintenance Complete

by Andrew Hoyos

> On Oct 4, 2016, at 3:02 PM, Chris Wopat <wopat(a)wiscnet.net> wrote: > > On 10/04/2016 02:56 PM, Jeremy Lumby wrote: >> I have completed the maintenance of moving everyone off of the old 4200, and onto the new one. Please let me know if you have any issues, I will be staying around 511 for a little while in the event that you do. I pinged each interface IP as I moved it to verify it pinged, then dropped, and then picked back up again once it was in the new switch. > > All of our peering sessions went down at about 14:45. We (AS53597) also lost *all* of our sessions, and shouldn’t have been affected by this in theory. Did something happen to the VC fabric to break it while the maintenance was happening? I mean, hold timers are 90 sec on most of these sessions. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Oct. 4, 2016

Re: Maintenance Complete

by Chris Wopat

On 10/04/2016 03:02 PM, Chris Wopat wrote: > > All of our peering sessions went down at about 14:45. More specifically, they flapped at that time, all have been back online for the last 10 minutes or so. -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Oct. 4, 2016

Re: Maintenance Complete

by Chris Wopat

On 10/04/2016 02:56 PM, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > I have completed the maintenance of moving everyone off of the old 4200, and onto the new one. Please let me know if you have any issues, I will be staying around 511 for a little while in the event that you do. I pinged each interface IP as I moved it to verify it pinged, then dropped, and then picked back up again once it was in the new switch. All of our peering sessions went down at about 14:45. -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Oct. 4, 2016

Re: Maintenance Complete

by anthonyanderberg＠nu-telecom.net

I can't ping 206.108.255.244 from the graph server at 216.17.46.18 or my systems here, I suspect it needs routes like Doug put in for our access. Also, I assume you copied all of the usernames and SNMP stuff from the main switch config. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 2:56 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Maintenance Complete I have completed the maintenance of moving everyone off of the old 4200, and onto the new one. Please let me know if you have any issues, I will be staying around 511 for a little while in the event that you do. I pinged each interface IP as I moved it to verify it pinged, then dropped, and then picked back up again once it was in the new switch. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

Oct. 4, 2016

Maintenance Complete

by Jeremy Lumby

I have completed the maintenance of moving everyone off of the old 4200, and onto the new one. Please let me know if you have any issues, I will be staying around 511 for a little while in the event that you do. I pinged each interface IP as I moved it to verify it pinged, then dropped, and then picked back up again once it was in the new switch. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

Oct. 4, 2016

Re: 1G Fiber Port Moves

by Jeremy Lumby

Thanks, that will make the move quicker/easier -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 4:56 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] 1G Fiber Port Moves On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 03:32:40PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: > The following ports will be moved from the existing EX4200-24T to the EX4550 > > from ge-1/1/0 to ge-2/0/28 --- 5 Nines 1G SFP > from ge-1/1/1 to ge-2/0/29 --- ClaimLynx 1G SFP > from ge-1/1/2 to ge-2/0/30 --- CDW Berbee 1G SFP > from ge-1/1/3 to ge-2/0/31 --- Velocity Telephone 1G SFP I've config'd the switch over from 10G ports (ie. xe-2/0/0) over to 1G ports now for these four members + ge-2/0/0 for Route Server #2. (initial setup assumed everything would be 10G on the new EX4550). -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Sept. 30, 2016

Re: 1G Fiber Port Moves

by Doug McIntyre

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 03:32:40PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: > The following ports will be moved from the existing EX4200-24T to the EX4550 > > from ge-1/1/0 to ge-2/0/28 --- 5 Nines 1G SFP > from ge-1/1/1 to ge-2/0/29 --- ClaimLynx 1G SFP > from ge-1/1/2 to ge-2/0/30 --- CDW Berbee 1G SFP > from ge-1/1/3 to ge-2/0/31 --- Velocity Telephone 1G SFP I've config'd the switch over from 10G ports (ie. xe-2/0/0) over to 1G ports now for these four members + ge-2/0/0 for Route Server #2. (initial setup assumed everything would be 10G on the new EX4550). -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Sept. 30, 2016

Re: NebraskaLink LAG Migration

by Jason Hanke

ae1 On Sep 29, 2016 8:40 PM, "Richard Laager" <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > On 09/29/2016 08:37 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > On 09/29/2016 04:34 PM, Jason Hanke wrote: > >> Nebraskalink is adding a second 10G to their MICE connection. > >> > >> The additional port is xe-0/0/4 > > > > Will this be ae12 or non-LAG? > > Sorry, I see this is on the Neutral Path switch. Let me rephrase > accordingly: > > Which ae interface is this, or is this non-LAG? > > -- > Richard >

Sept. 30, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Jason Hanke

I'm not set up in the new peeringdb system for MICE yet. Old system for IX was you send in an email and ask for changes. I'll make the updates as soon as I'm approved. On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > On 09/29/2016 01:26 PM, Andrew Hoyos wrote: >> On Sep 29, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: >>> >>> I've bumped up the route servers to 55k for HE's connection. (Normal >>> connections are limited to 1k without an override). >> >> Can we document that here (perhaps with any other relevant technical detail about route-servers… OS/versions/config/etc)? I was not aware of any max-prefix settings on the route-servers. >> >> http://micemn.net/technical.html > > Done. I wasn't aware of this limit either. > > I'm not personally in favor of documenting version numbers. It is likely > to get out-of-date, and I don't see the reason. That said, if someone > sends the information and we have more ACKs than NAKs, I'll add it. > >> A peering DB record maybe a good idea here as well, for the route-servers, so folks have a general idea of what to set max-pfx to, etc. >> IE: https://peeringdb.com/net/6834 > > I think this is a great idea. > > Jay, if you agree, can you set this up? I'm assuming you're managing the > existing MICE entry in peeringdb, as I believe you handle the > peering(a)micemn.net email account. > > -- > Richard -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Sept. 30, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Mike Horwath

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:01:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > 2PM Sent. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 30, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Jeremy Lumby

2PM -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 9:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 03:45:55PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: > Please allocate ge-2/0/0 to route server 2. There is no change in IP address. > > I'm blocked from announce. Can someone else get the notification > together for the announce list? I can do that. What time Tuesday afternoon? -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 30, 2016

Re: Election

by Richard Laager

On 09/27/2016 05:03 PM, DeLong, Owen wrote: > Congratulations, Richard. On 09/27/2016 05:12 PM, Levi Pederson wrote: > Congrats On 09/28/2016 08:15 AM, John Unger wrote: > Congrats Richard!!! Thanks everyone! I am grateful for this opportunity to help the exchange. -- Richard

Sept. 30, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Richard Laager

On 09/29/2016 09:34 PM, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > On the new 4200 side ae0 is made up of xe-0/1/0 and xe-0/1/2 > On the existing stack ae11 is made up of xe-0/2/2 and xe-2/0/16 > xe-0/1/0 is connected to xe-0/2/2 and xe-0/1/2 is connected to xe-2/0/16 via 10G DAC cables (which I donated) > With the exception of the 4 SFP ports and route server #2 that Jay mentioned, all moves will be to the same numbered port on the switch. In the old stack, they are all ge-1/0/x, and on the new 4200, they will all be ge-0/0/x I will keep the x the same so I moved my port from ge-1/0/11 to ge-0/0/11 and the looking glass has also been moved to ge-0/0/0 All other moves will happen during the Tuesday afternoon maintenance window. Thanks! I've updated the website. And thanks for the donation of the DAC cables! -- Richard

Sept. 30, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Mike Horwath

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:34:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > All other moves will happen during the Tuesday afternoon maintenance > window. When? 1200-1700? (trolling for someone to commit to a time so I can get the announcement posted) -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 30, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Jeremy Lumby

On the new 4200 side ae0 is made up of xe-0/1/0 and xe-0/1/2 On the existing stack ae11 is made up of xe-0/2/2 and xe-2/0/16 xe-0/1/0 is connected to xe-0/2/2 and xe-0/1/2 is connected to xe-2/0/16 via 10G DAC cables (which I donated) With the exception of the 4 SFP ports and route server #2 that Jay mentioned, all moves will be to the same numbered port on the switch. In the old stack, they are all ge-1/0/x, and on the new 4200, they will all be ge-0/0/x I will keep the x the same so I moved my port from ge-1/0/11 to ge-0/0/11 and the looking glass has also been moved to ge-0/0/0 All other moves will happen during the Tuesday afternoon maintenance window. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 8:59 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants I'm assuming these are named "ge-0/0/X", for X in 0 to 23 inclusive; is that correct? Jeremy, which port are you (well, Minnesota VoIP) using on the new switch? What are the port names of two 10G uplinks on the new switch? Of those, which 10G port on the new switch is connected to xe-0/2/2 in the core stack and which is connected to xe-2/0/16? What is the name of the LAG on the new EX4200-24T switch (the other side of ae11 on the core stack)? Is it ae0? -- Richard

Sept. 30, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Mike Horwath

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 03:45:55PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: > Please allocate ge-2/0/0 to route server 2. There is no change in IP address. > > I'm blocked from announce. Can someone else get the notification > together for the announce list? I can do that. What time Tuesday afternoon? -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 30, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Mike Horwath

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:15:00AM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > Jay, > > Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical > ports on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose > plugging one of the route servers into the 4500 to spread them > across 2 stacks, so if you agree, please assign a port for that as > well. Also if you have permission, can you post the maintenance to > the Announce list? I'll need to do some maintenance on the list configuration with the loss of Shaun. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 30, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Richard Laager

I'm assuming these are named "ge-0/0/X", for X in 0 to 23 inclusive; is that correct? Jeremy, which port are you (well, Minnesota VoIP) using on the new switch? What are the port names of two 10G uplinks on the new switch? Of those, which 10G port on the new switch is connected to xe-0/2/2 in the core stack and which is connected to xe-2/0/16? What is the name of the LAG on the new EX4200-24T switch (the other side of ae11 on the core stack)? Is it ae0? -- Richard

Sept. 30, 2016

Re: 1G Fiber Port Moves

by Richard Laager

On 09/29/2016 03:32 PM, Jason Hanke wrote: > The following ports will be moved from the existing EX4200-24T to the EX4550 > > from ge-1/1/0 to ge-2/0/28 --- 5 Nines 1G SFP > from ge-1/1/1 to ge-2/0/29 --- ClaimLynx 1G SFP > from ge-1/1/2 to ge-2/0/30 --- CDW Berbee 1G SFP > from ge-1/1/3 to ge-2/0/31 --- Velocity Telephone 1G SFP I've updated the website. Unlike participant-initiated moves (where I document both ports until the move is verified complete), I'm treating these (and the route server #2 move) as if they are already complete. I'm doing this to reduce the website-updating work for myself, based on the assumption that these will be completed very soon (in the scheduled maintenance). If anyone thinks this is a bad idea, please let me know and I'll adjust accordingly. I also need to know how the ports are moving from the existing 1G switch to the new 1G switch in the maintenance. -- Richard

Sept. 30, 2016

Re: NebraskaLink LAG Migration

by Richard Laager

On 09/29/2016 08:37 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > On 09/29/2016 04:34 PM, Jason Hanke wrote: >> Nebraskalink is adding a second 10G to their MICE connection. >> >> The additional port is xe-0/0/4 > > Will this be ae12 or non-LAG? Sorry, I see this is on the Neutral Path switch. Let me rephrase accordingly: Which ae interface is this, or is this non-LAG? -- Richard

Sept. 30, 2016

Re: NebraskaLink LAG Migration

by Richard Laager

On 09/29/2016 04:34 PM, Jason Hanke wrote: > Nebraskalink is adding a second 10G to their MICE connection. > > The additional port is xe-0/0/4 Will this be ae12 or non-LAG? -- Richard

Sept. 30, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Richard Laager

On 09/29/2016 01:26 PM, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > On Sep 29, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: >> >> I've bumped up the route servers to 55k for HE's connection. (Normal >> connections are limited to 1k without an override). > > Can we document that here (perhaps with any other relevant technical detail about route-servers… OS/versions/config/etc)? I was not aware of any max-prefix settings on the route-servers. > > http://micemn.net/technical.html Done. I wasn't aware of this limit either. I'm not personally in favor of documenting version numbers. It is likely to get out-of-date, and I don't see the reason. That said, if someone sends the information and we have more ACKs than NAKs, I'll add it. > A peering DB record maybe a good idea here as well, for the route-servers, so folks have a general idea of what to set max-pfx to, etc. > IE: https://peeringdb.com/net/6834 I think this is a great idea. Jay, if you agree, can you set this up? I'm assuming you're managing the existing MICE entry in peeringdb, as I believe you handle the peering(a)micemn.net email account. -- Richard

Sept. 30, 2016

NebraskaLink LAG Migration

by Jason Hanke

Nebraskalink is adding a second 10G to their MICE connection. The additional port is xe-0/0/4 -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Sept. 29, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Jason Hanke

Please allocate ge-2/0/0 to route server 2. There is no change in IP address. I'm blocked from announce. Can someone else get the notification together for the announce list? On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > I will donate one > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 3:33 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants > > Do we have a copper SFP for the Route Server connection? > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: >> Jay, >> >> >> >> Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports >> on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of >> the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you >> agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, >> can you post the maintenance to the Announce list? >> >> >> >> Jeremy >> >> >> >> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan >> Goldberg >> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:07 AM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G >> Participants >> >> >> >> No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g... >> >> >> On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)AITECH.NET> wrote: >> >> Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this. >> >> Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general >> consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to >> MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down >> their sessions in advance if they prefer. >> >> >> >> I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the >> existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity >> Telephone) to the 4550? >> >> >> >> ~Matthew >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: >> >> As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to >> the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the >> existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper >> stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports >> lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the >> other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to >> all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to >> the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the >> 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back >> as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so >> that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss >> changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I >> believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the >> existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a >> maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to >> the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left >> shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, >> while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables >> has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited >> availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. >> Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would >> rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G >> users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of >> time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one. >> >> >> Jeremy Lumby >> Minnesota VoIP >> 9217 17th Ave S >> Suite 216 >> Bloomington, MN 55425 >> Main: 612-355-7740 x211 >> Direct: 612-392-6814 >> EFax: 952-873-7425 >> jlumby(a)mnvoip.com >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> 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 > > > > -- > Jay Hanke > CTO > Neutral Path Communications > 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 > Mankato, MN 56001 > (507) 327-2398 mobile > jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net > www.neutralpath.net -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Sept. 29, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Jeremy Lumby

I will donate one -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 3:33 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Do we have a copper SFP for the Route Server connection? On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Jay, > > > > Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports > on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of > the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you > agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, > can you post the maintenance to the Announce list? > > > > Jeremy > > > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan > Goldberg > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:07 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > > > No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g... > > > On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)AITECH.NET> wrote: > > Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this. > > Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general > consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to > MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down > their sessions in advance if they prefer. > > > > I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the > existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity > Telephone) to the 4550? > > > > ~Matthew > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to > the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the > existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper > stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports > lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the > other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to > all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to > the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the > 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back > as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so > that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss > changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I > believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the > existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a > maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to > the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left > shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, > while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables > has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited > availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. > Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would > rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G > users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of > time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one. > > > Jeremy Lumby > Minnesota VoIP > 9217 17th Ave S > Suite 216 > Bloomington, MN 55425 > Main: 612-355-7740 x211 > Direct: 612-392-6814 > EFax: 952-873-7425 > jlumby(a)mnvoip.com > > > > > > ________________________________ > > 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 -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Sept. 29, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Jason Hanke

Do we have a copper SFP for the Route Server connection? On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Jay, > > > > Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports > on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of > the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you > agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, > can you post the maintenance to the Announce list? > > > > Jeremy > > > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan > Goldberg > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:07 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > > > No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g... > > > On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)AITECH.NET> wrote: > > Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this. > > Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general > consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to > MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down > their sessions in advance if they prefer. > > > > I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the > existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity > Telephone) to the 4550? > > > > ~Matthew > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to > the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the > existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper > stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports > lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the > other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to > all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to > the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the > 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back > as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so > that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss > changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I > believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the > existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a > maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to > the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left > shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, > while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables > has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited > availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. > Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would > rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G > users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of > time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one. > > > Jeremy Lumby > Minnesota VoIP > 9217 17th Ave S > Suite 216 > Bloomington, MN 55425 > Main: 612-355-7740 x211 > Direct: 612-392-6814 > EFax: 952-873-7425 > jlumby(a)mnvoip.com > > > > > > ________________________________ > > 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 -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Sept. 29, 2016

1G Fiber Port Moves

by Jason Hanke

The following ports will be moved from the existing EX4200-24T to the EX4550 from ge-1/1/0 to ge-2/0/28 --- 5 Nines 1G SFP from ge-1/1/1 to ge-2/0/29 --- ClaimLynx 1G SFP from ge-1/1/2 to ge-2/0/30 --- CDW Berbee 1G SFP from ge-1/1/3 to ge-2/0/31 --- Velocity Telephone 1G SFP The move is necessary to facilitate breaking the EX4200 out of the Virtual Chassis configuration. -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Sept. 29, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Andrew Hoyos

On Sep 29, 2016, at 11:42 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > > I've bumped up the route servers to 55k for HE's connection. (Normal > connections are limited to 1k without an override). Can we document that here (perhaps with any other relevant technical detail about route-servers… OS/versions/config/etc)? I was not aware of any max-prefix settings on the route-servers. http://micemn.net/technical.html A peering DB record maybe a good idea here as well, for the route-servers, so folks have a general idea of what to set max-pfx to, etc. IE: https://peeringdb.com/net/6834 -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Sept. 29, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 01:49:30PM -0500, Reid Fishler wrote: > Hurricane will begin to send routes to the route servers within the next > few days. Approximately 40k routes will be sent, so watch your filters! > Happy peering! I've bumped up the route servers to 55k for HE's connection. (Normal connections are limited to 1k without an override). -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Sept. 29, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Doug McIntyre

On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:35:00AM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. That is fine for ipHouse. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Sept. 29, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Jeremy Lumby

Eventually I would like to stack it with the new 4200, however I do not want to immediately since there is a possibility that one of its stacking cables, or interfaces have an issue, and therefore I would like to run clean for a while before we add it into the mix. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:27 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants What is the plan with the old 4200? On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Jay, > > > > Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports > on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of > the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you > agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, > can you post the maintenance to the Announce list? > > > > Jeremy > > > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan > Goldberg > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:07 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > > > No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g... > > > On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)AITECH.NET> wrote: > > Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this. > > Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general > consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to > MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down > their sessions in advance if they prefer. > > > > I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the > existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity > Telephone) to the 4550? > > > > ~Matthew > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to > the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the > existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper > stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports > lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the > other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to > all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to > the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the > 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back > as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so > that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss > changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I > believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the > existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a > maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to > the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left > shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, > while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables > has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited > availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. > Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would > rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G > users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of > time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one. > > > Jeremy Lumby > Minnesota VoIP > 9217 17th Ave S > Suite 216 > Bloomington, MN 55425 > Main: 612-355-7740 x211 > Direct: 612-392-6814 > EFax: 952-873-7425 > jlumby(a)mnvoip.com > > > > > > ________________________________ > > 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 -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Sept. 29, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Jason Hanke

What is the plan with the old 4200? On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Jay, > > > > Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports > on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of > the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you > agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, > can you post the maintenance to the Announce list? > > > > Jeremy > > > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan > Goldberg > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:07 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > > > No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g... > > > On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)AITECH.NET> wrote: > > Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this. > > Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general > consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to > MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down > their sessions in advance if they prefer. > > > > I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the > existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity > Telephone) to the 4550? > > > > ~Matthew > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to > the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the > existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper > stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports > lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the > other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to > all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to > the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the > 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back > as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so > that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss > changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I > believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the > existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a > maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to > the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left > shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, > while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables > has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited > availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. > Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would > rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G > users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of > time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one. > > > Jeremy Lumby > Minnesota VoIP > 9217 17th Ave S > Suite 216 > Bloomington, MN 55425 > Main: 612-355-7740 x211 > Direct: 612-392-6814 > EFax: 952-873-7425 > jlumby(a)mnvoip.com > > > > > > ________________________________ > > 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 -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Sept. 29, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Jeremy Lumby

Jay, Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, can you post the maintenance to the Announce list? Jeremy From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:07 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g... On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)AITECH.NET> wrote: Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this. Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down their sessions in advance if they prefer. I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity Telephone) to the 4550? ~Matthew On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 29, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Thomas Johnson

IIRC, we (ClaimLynx) were previously on the 4550, and moved to the 4200 to free up 10GE ports. We're content to be moved wherever is convenient for the exchange (we briefly discussed moving us to the CNS switch). On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)aitech.net> wrote: > I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the > existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity > Telephone) to the 4550? -- Thomas Johnson ClaimLynx, Inc. 952-593-5969 x2302 -- This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please contact the sender or call ClaimLynx at (952) 593-5969.

Sept. 29, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Ryan Goldberg

No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g... On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)AITECH.NET<mailto:matthewb@aitech.net>> wrote: Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this. Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down their sessions in advance if they prefer. I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity Telephone) to the 4550? ~Matthew On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 29, 2016