- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: SIX Lowers Fees

by Shaun Carlson

Thanks for all of your work getting this wrapped up Richard! s Shaun Carlson Director of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346.8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:44 AM -0500, "Richard Laager" <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: Non-profit filing will hopefully happen next week, if I get everything done with the MN Secretary of State's office in time. I am currently waiting for them to accept a filing, and then I need to request certified copies of the Articles of Incorporation. Otherwise, I'm out of the country for a couple weeks, so it'll happen when I get back. I have no idea how long the IRS will take or if there is a serious risk of rejection. I definitely think we need to figure some plan for fees. -- Richard

Oct. 18, 2016

Re: SIX Lowers Fees

by Richard Laager

Non-profit filing will hopefully happen next week, if I get everything done with the MN Secretary of State's office in time. I am currently waiting for them to accept a filing, and then I need to request certified copies of the Articles of Incorporation. Otherwise, I'm out of the country for a couple weeks, so it'll happen when I get back. I have no idea how long the IRS will take or if there is a serious risk of rejection. I definitely think we need to figure some plan for fees. -- Richard

Oct. 18, 2016

SIX Lowers Fees

by Justin Krejci

I feel SIX is like a big brother that MICE looks up to so I would like to point out that SIX is lowering their port fees due to their success of membership growth. What a good problem, we're taking in so much money we'd like to drop our fees significantly. https://www.seattleix.net/pr20160930 As the MICE fee structure is still not implemented or even decided yet, I'd like to hit the beehive a little and see if there is any progress to that end. I am sure that MICE as a non non-profit could still take in money and then also spend that money without much challenge to avoid any serious taxation concerns, assuming the non-profit work continues to stall for more months or years (unless someone wants to share good news in this regard). Can the board set a goal or target for us to strive towards as an organization? Maybe we need a little tyranny to get things going in this regard? This can has been kicked down the road so many times, it's not even recognizable as a can anymore. :) Food for thought.

Oct. 18, 2016

MICE In the News

by Charles Monson

I was made aware Yahoo Finance posted a brief article yesterday about MICE. I didn't see it posted to the list yet, but figured a few people may be interested in reading it. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/midwest-internet-cooperative-exchange-mice-13… Charles

Oct. 12, 2016

DocuMNtray

by David Farmer

This is a great DocuMNtray about the Minnesota Tech Industry both historic and where it going in the future. http://www.documntary.com/ We should have a like to this on the MICE page. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================

Oct. 11, 2016

Minutes

by Richard Laager

Did anyone take minutes at the last user group meeting? If so, can I get a copy of the draft minutes for the website? -- Richard

Oct. 10, 2016

Re: BFD support on BGP sessions

by Andrew Hoyos

> > On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:07 PM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 7, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)IPHOUSE.NET> wrote: >> >> protocol bfd { >> interface "bce1" { >> min rx interval 20 ms; >> min tx interval 50 ms; >> idle tx interval 300 ms; >> passive; >> }; >> neighbor 206.108.255.3; >> neighbor 206.108.255.4; >> neighbor 206.108.255.5; >> neighbor 206.108.255.6; >> neighbor 206.108.255.7; >> neighbor 206.108.255.8; >> .... >> } > > Based on http://bird.network.cz/?get_doc&f=bird-6.html, I’d suggest something a bit less aggressive like 500ms x 3. I know a number of us here are using similar timer settings with good luck. idle tx would seem to not be required since it’s in passive mode (so it won’t send packets to a neighbor until it gets one first) > > protocol bfd { > interface "bce1" { > interval 500 ms; > multiplier 3 > passive; > }; And for the neighbors, you’d want to tie these to the BGP sessions rather than creating direct sessions inside 'protocol bfd'. If you add the ‘bfd’ switch to BGP sessions, it will dynamically create the BFD sessions, and tie BGP state to BFD. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Oct. 7, 2016

Re: BFD support on BGP sessions

by Andrew Hoyos

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)IPHOUSE.NET> wrote: > > protocol bfd { > interface "bce1" { > min rx interval 20 ms; > min tx interval 50 ms; > idle tx interval 300 ms; > passive; > }; > neighbor 206.108.255.3; > neighbor 206.108.255.4; > neighbor 206.108.255.5; > neighbor 206.108.255.6; > neighbor 206.108.255.7; > neighbor 206.108.255.8; > .... > } Based on http://bird.network.cz/?get_doc&f=bird-6.html, I’d suggest something a bit less aggressive like 500ms x 3. I know a number of us here are using similar timer settings with good luck. idle tx would seem to not be required since it’s in passive mode (so it won’t send packets to a neighbor until it gets one first) protocol bfd { interface "bce1" { interval 500 ms; multiplier 3 passive; }; -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Oct. 7, 2016

Re: BFD support on BGP sessions

by Doug McIntyre

On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 04:30:22PM -0500, James Stahr wrote: > For MICE though, it would be *great* if one of the route servers could be > setup with BFD support that way everyone could benefit and withdraw routes > faster once it was rolled out to both. It still wouldn't insure that A can > talk directly to B, only bilateral peering can solve that. BIRD appears to > have a "passive" setting for it too, so it wouldn't try to do BFD unless the > other side initiated. So, something like this? protocol bfd { interface "bce1" { min rx interval 20 ms; min tx interval 50 ms; idle tx interval 300 ms; passive; }; neighbor 206.108.255.3; neighbor 206.108.255.4; neighbor 206.108.255.5; neighbor 206.108.255.6; neighbor 206.108.255.7; neighbor 206.108.255.8; .... } And then likewise for the IPv6 daemon? -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 7, 2016

Re: BFD support on BGP sessions

by James Stahr

On 10/04/2016 8:35 PM, Michael Hare wrote: > 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 > +1 on all counts.. For any of the folks also at MadIX, I'll do BFD with you there as well. Can we add BFD as a column on its' KB as well? For MICE though, it would be *great* if one of the route servers could be setup with BFD support that way everyone could benefit and withdraw routes faster once it was rolled out to both. It still wouldn't insure that A can talk directly to B, only bilateral peering can solve that. BIRD appears to have a "passive" setting for it too, so it wouldn't try to do BFD unless the other side initiated. -James > -----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. > >

Oct. 7, 2016

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

by Jeremy Lumby

As of 7:30AM, we are back to how we were yesterday afternoon. If you want to see the exact times I made the switch, both ports are graphed individually on http://micelg.usinternet.com/ on the last page of the copper switch graphs. I am not showing any loss to my USI customer since I made the switch back this morning (however I was prior to 7:30AM). From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Matthew Beckwell Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 9:38 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Just to confirm...what port(s) are active right now for the new LAG at the moment? I'm currently getting >1% loss from the "new" 4200 (ge-0/0/15) over to USI on the 4500 (xe-0/0/14). I thought I ran the same test yesterday afternoon with no loss.. ~Matthew On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: For the time being, I am going to leave only the connection from the 4200 to the 4500 active since it has the most members, and therefore will show the least overall loss, while we determine our next step in troubleshooting this issue. To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 5, 2016

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

by Matthew Beckwell

Just to confirm...what port(s) are active right now for the new LAG at the moment? I'm currently getting >1% loss from the "new" 4200 (ge-0/0/15) over to USI on the 4500 (xe-0/0/14). I thought I ran the same test yesterday afternoon with no loss.. ~Matthew On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > For the time being, I am going to leave only the connection from the 4200 > to the 4500 active since it has the most members, and therefore will show > the least overall loss, while we determine our next step in troubleshooting > this issue. >

Oct. 5, 2016

Re: BFD support on BGP sessions

by Richard Laager

On 10/05/2016 07:17 AM, Colin Baker wrote: > Would have to be per session to be useful. I'm not aware of any IXPs > doing BFD on route servers - it's something worth discussing, and it may > be fine with fairly conservative timers, but I suspect members > interested in utilizing BFD will probably also want to set up bilateral > with those peers. I'm wondering if routers support configuring a BFD neighbor separately from a BGP neighbor and then using BFD for next-hop validation. I'm guessing not. So for those of you looking at using BFD, in addition to the bilateral peering, you'd need to filter the routes coming from the route servers and drop those of your BFD peers, right? Otherwise, when your session to the peer goes down, you'd still be hearing their routes from the route server. >> Colin, does Supranet support BFD for both AS4150 and AS5683, or just the >> former? > > 4150. You can actually remove 5683 from the website - it's not > currently connected and we likely won't be bringing it back. I've updated the website. The route servers will need to be updated too, and this frees up 206.108.255.28. -- Richard

Oct. 5, 2016

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

by Jeremy Lumby

Just to update everyone after yesterday's maintenance. After removing the 4200 from the virtual chassis, unfortunately I am still seeing loss when packets go between the 4500, and the 4550. The good news is removing the 4200 has improved it since the loss is now down to 0.06% on a 6 hour test (previously it was around 0.3%), unfortunately I am 100% sure it is real since I can shut down 1 of the two LAG ports at a time from the 4200, and the loss to the switch with the active lag port is always truly 0, and the other switch is 0.06% When I flip which port on the LAG is shutdown, then the loss flips to the other switch exactly as expected. For the time being, I am going to leave only the connection from the 4200 to the 4500 active since it has the most members, and therefore will show the least overall loss, while we determine our next step in troubleshooting this issue. 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. 5, 2016

Re: BFD support on BGP sessions

by Colin Baker

On 04.10.2016 20:52, Richard Laager wrote: > 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.) Would have to be per session to be useful. I'm not aware of any IXPs doing BFD on route servers - it's something worth discussing, and it may be fine with fairly conservative timers, but I suspect members interested in utilizing BFD will probably also want to set up bilateral with those peers. > Colin, does Supranet support BFD for both AS4150 and AS5683, or just > the > former? 4150. You can actually remove 5683 from the website - it's not currently connected and we likely won't be bringing it back. -- 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: 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