- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

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 It is likely to get out-of-date, and I don't see the reason.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

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

by Matthew Beckwell

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 >

Sept. 29, 2016

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

by Jeremy Lumby

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

Sept. 29, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Michael Hare

+1, we also tripped. Thankfully there was no unannounced (or lightly announced) maintenance on RS1 that overlapped. However, (sincerely), thank you for peering. -Michael > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of > Chris Wopat > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 2:46 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Hurricane and route servers > > On 09/28/2016 02:41 PM, Rob Mosher wrote: > > As indicated, we're not going to be sending these routes right away. > > We're waiting for networks to have time to adjust. > > +3k were just sent on RS2 at about 2pm Central, more than doubling what > was previously sent. > > The first mention on the mailing list was at 1:49pm central. > > -- > Chris Wopat > Network Engineer, WiscNet > wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Rob Mosher

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 >

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Rob Mosher

This was only sent to RS2. -- Rob Mosher Senior Network and Software Engineer Hurricane Electric / AS6939 On 9/28/2016 3:44 PM, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > >> On Sep 28, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Rob Mosher <rmosher(a)HE.NET >> <mailto:rmosher@HE.NET>> wrote: >> >> As indicated, we're not going to be sending these routes right away. >> We're waiting for networks to have time to adjust. > > 4500 is double what was on the route-servers prior to today, so if > anyone had max prefix set at a same amount (2x current prefix ct), you > tripped everyone’s limits by sending the small subset. > > from stats page: > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Justin Krejci

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

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Chris Wopat

On 09/28/2016 02:41 PM, Rob Mosher wrote: > As indicated, we're not going to be sending these routes right away. > We're waiting for networks to have time to adjust. +3k were just sent on RS2 at about 2pm Central, more than doubling what was previously sent. The first mention on the mailing list was at 1:49pm central. -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Andrew Hoyos

> On Sep 28, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Rob Mosher <rmosher(a)HE.NET> wrote: > > As indicated, we're not going to be sending these routes right away. We're waiting for networks to have time to adjust. 4500 is double what was on the route-servers prior to today, so if anyone had max prefix set at a same amount (2x current prefix ct), you tripped everyone’s limits by sending the small subset. from stats page:

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Rob Mosher

It would be great if these networks could fix their filters, but at the same time, can we get some filters on the RS to drop any announcements with 6939 in the path that we don't announce directly? Should be a trivial filter. Thanks -- Rob Mosher Senior Network and Software Engineer Hurricane Electric / AS6939 On 9/28/2016 3:35 PM, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > Was just looking at this as well. Appears there are a few folks leaking _6939_ prefixes/paths on to the IX: > > NebraskaLink and Vaultas - may want to double check these > > hoyosa(a)er1.511.msp> show route receive-protocol bgp 206.108.255.2 | match 6939 > * 24.51.44.0/23 206.108.255.70 16851 6939 1299 174 30612 I > * 24.72.210.0/23 206.108.255.70 16851 6939 1299 174 30612 I > * 24.72.212.0/23 206.108.255.70 16851 6939 1299 174 30612 I > * 24.223.120.0/23 206.108.255.70 16851 6939 30688 30164 I > * 65.161.180.0/23 206.108.255.70 16851 6939 209 17046 I > * 72.14.74.0/24 206.108.255.100 53480 6939 5009 I > * 199.47.66.0/24 206.108.255.70 16851 6939 6461 32307 I > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com > > > >> On Sep 28, 2016, at 2:29 PM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)MYPREMIERONLINE.COM> wrote: >> >> Just saw our BGP session go down …. I’m guessing someone added something already. >> >> Sep 28 14:02:56 192.168.0.85 BGP: No. of prefix received from BGP Peer 206.108.255.2: exceeds warning limit 1980 >> Sep 28 14:02:57 192.168.0.85 BGP: No. of prefix received from BGP Peer 206.108.255.2 exceeds maximum prefix limit...shutdown >> Sep 28 14:02:57 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.2 DOWN (Peer had exceeded the prefix limit) >> >> Removed limits for now. >> >> telnet@Premier's_MLXe-4_facing_Spencer#show ip bgp summary >> <snip> >> Neighbor Address AS# State Time Rt:Accepted Filtered Sent ToSend >> 206.108.255.1 53679 ESTAB 38d 2h48m 1831 0 49 0 >> 206.108.255.2 53679 ESTAB 0h 0m39s 5167 0 49 0 >> telnet@Premier's_MLXe-4_facing_Spencer# >> >> Reid, can let us know how many IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes you’ll be sending, so we can adjust our limits? >> >> Frank >> >> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Reid Fishler >> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 1:50 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 >>

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Rob Mosher

As indicated, we're not going to be sending these routes right away. We're waiting for networks to have time to adjust. -- Rob Mosher Senior Network and Software Engineer Hurricane Electric / AS6939 On 9/28/2016 3:38 PM, Chris Wopat wrote: > On 09/28/2016 02:32 PM, Rob Mosher wrote: >> As per Reid's email, we'll be sending around 40k, so I'd increase your >> limits by at least that much. >> >> Currently, we're sending a small subset (about 4500) to rs2. > > Perhaps give it a few days before sending more at all for folks to get > caught up on the list? This was first mentioned only an hour ago. > > I would suspect that many folks had a limit set around 4k or so, which > is more than double what it has been recently. > > It also may be beneficial to post a recommended prefix limit for the > route servers on the website, and/or add AS53679 to peeringdb with > said info. >

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Chris Wopat

On 09/28/2016 02:32 PM, Rob Mosher wrote: > As per Reid's email, we'll be sending around 40k, so I'd increase your > limits by at least that much. > > Currently, we're sending a small subset (about 4500) to rs2. Perhaps give it a few days before sending more at all for folks to get caught up on the list? This was first mentioned only an hour ago. I would suspect that many folks had a limit set around 4k or so, which is more than double what it has been recently. It also may be beneficial to post a recommended prefix limit for the route servers on the website, and/or add AS53679 to peeringdb with said info. -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Andrew Hoyos

Was just looking at this as well. Appears there are a few folks leaking _6939_ prefixes/paths on to the IX: NebraskaLink and Vaultas - may want to double check these hoyosa(a)er1.511.msp> show route receive-protocol bgp 206.108.255.2 | match 6939 * 24.51.44.0/23 206.108.255.70 16851 6939 1299 174 30612 I * 24.72.210.0/23 206.108.255.70 16851 6939 1299 174 30612 I * 24.72.212.0/23 206.108.255.70 16851 6939 1299 174 30612 I * 24.223.120.0/23 206.108.255.70 16851 6939 30688 30164 I * 65.161.180.0/23 206.108.255.70 16851 6939 209 17046 I * 72.14.74.0/24 206.108.255.100 53480 6939 5009 I * 199.47.66.0/24 206.108.255.70 16851 6939 6461 32307 I -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Sep 28, 2016, at 2:29 PM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)MYPREMIERONLINE.COM> wrote: > > Just saw our BGP session go down …. I’m guessing someone added something already. > > Sep 28 14:02:56 192.168.0.85 BGP: No. of prefix received from BGP Peer 206.108.255.2: exceeds warning limit 1980 > Sep 28 14:02:57 192.168.0.85 BGP: No. of prefix received from BGP Peer 206.108.255.2 exceeds maximum prefix limit...shutdown > Sep 28 14:02:57 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.2 DOWN (Peer had exceeded the prefix limit) > > Removed limits for now. > > telnet@Premier's_MLXe-4_facing_Spencer#show ip bgp summary > <snip> > Neighbor Address AS# State Time Rt:Accepted Filtered Sent ToSend > 206.108.255.1 53679 ESTAB 38d 2h48m 1831 0 49 0 > 206.108.255.2 53679 ESTAB 0h 0m39s 5167 0 49 0 > telnet@Premier's_MLXe-4_facing_Spencer# > > Reid, can let us know how many IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes you’ll be sending, so we can adjust our limits? > > Frank > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Reid Fishler > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 1:50 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 >

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Rob Mosher

As per Reid's email, we'll be sending around 40k, so I'd increase your limits by at least that much. Currently, we're sending a small subset (about 4500) to rs2. -- Rob Mosher Senior Network and Software Engineer Hurricane Electric / AS6939 On 9/28/2016 3:29 PM, Frank Bulk wrote: > > Just saw our BGP session go down …. I’m guessing someone added > something already. > > Sep 28 14:02:56 192.168.0.85 BGP: No. of prefix received from BGP Peer > 206.108.255.2: exceeds warning limit 1980 > > Sep 28 14:02:57 192.168.0.85 BGP: No. of prefix received from BGP Peer > 206.108.255.2 exceeds maximum prefix limit...shutdown > > Sep 28 14:02:57 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.2 DOWN (Peer had > exceeded the prefix limit) > > Removed limits for now. > > telnet@Premier's_MLXe-4_facing_Spencer#show ip bgp summary > > <snip> > > Neighbor Address AS# State Time Rt:Accepted > Filtered Sent ToSend > > 206.108.255.1 53679 ESTAB 38d 2h48m 1831 0 > 49 0 > > 206.108.255.2 53679 ESTAB 0h 0m39s 5167 0 > 49 0 > > telnet@Premier's_MLXe-4_facing_Spencer# > > Reid, can let us know how many IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes you’ll be > sending, so we can adjust our limits? > > Frank > > *From:*MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] *On Behalf > Of *Reid Fishler > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 28, 2016 1:50 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 >

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Frank Bulk

Just saw our BGP session go down …. I’m guessing someone added something already. Sep 28 14:02:56 192.168.0.85 BGP: No. of prefix received from BGP Peer 206.108.255.2: exceeds warning limit 1980 Sep 28 14:02:57 192.168.0.85 BGP: No. of prefix received from BGP Peer 206.108.255.2 exceeds maximum prefix limit...shutdown Sep 28 14:02:57 192.168.0.85 BGP: Peer 206.108.255.2 DOWN (Peer had exceeded the prefix limit) Removed limits for now. telnet@Premier's_MLXe-4_facing_Spencer#show ip bgp summary <snip> Neighbor Address AS# State Time Rt:Accepted Filtered Sent ToSend 206.108.255.1 53679 ESTAB 38d 2h48m 1831 0 49 0 206.108.255.2 53679 ESTAB 0h 0m39s 5167 0 49 0 telnet@Premier's_MLXe-4_facing_Spencer# Reid, can let us know how many IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes you’ll be sending, so we can adjust our limits? Frank From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Reid Fishler Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 1:50 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

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Mike Horwath

On Sep 28, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Rob Mosher <rmosher(a)HE.NET> wrote: > > Yes. Please raise max-prefix limits as necessary. We'll start off with a small set of routes now, and after everyone has a chance to update, we'll announce about 40k routes. So..care to fill us in on the changes? Nerds need data! -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Reid Fishler

Yes On Sep 28, 2016 1:54 PM, "Jason Hanke" <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> wrote: > These are IPv4 routes? > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net> 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! >> >> Reid >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> 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 > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Rob Mosher

Yes. Please raise max-prefix limits as necessary. We'll start off with a small set of routes now, and after everyone has a chance to update, we'll announce about 40k routes. -- Rob Mosher Senior Network and Software Engineer Hurricane Electric / AS6939 On 9/28/2016 2:54 PM, Jason Hanke wrote: > These are IPv4 routes? > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net > <mailto:rfishler@he.net>> 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! > > Reid > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1> > > > > > -- > Jay Hanke > CTO > Neutral Path Communications > 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 > Mankato, MN 56001 > (507) 327-2398 mobile > jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net <mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net> > www.neutralpath.net <http://www.neutralpath.net> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: Hurricane and route servers

by Jason Hanke

These are IPv4 routes? On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net> 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! > > Reid > > ------------------------------ > > 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. 28, 2016

Hurricane and route servers

by Reid Fishler

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

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening?

by Frank Bulk

Traffic started ramping up at 7:45. Thanks to all who worked on this. Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:00 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? That’s what we’re seeing too: er1.511.msp rpd[1461]: bgp_read_v4_message:10672: NOTIFICATION received from 206.108.255.37 (External AS 36040): code 6 (Cease) subcode 6 (Other Configuration Change) (which on JunOS, actually flaps the session) -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Sep 27, 2016, at 10:56 PM, anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net <anthonyanderberg(a)NU-TELECOM.NET> wrote: > > Looks the same as yesterday on both servers: > 206.108.255.37 BGP master up 22:38:09 Established > 2001:504:27:0:0:8cc8::1 BGP master start 22:42:34 Idle Received: Maximum number of prefixes reached > > But I see we've started getting these BIRD log messages: > 016-09-26 17:28:45 <RMT> NASN_36040: Received: Other configuration change > > Additionally my ping generated a "We're actively troubleshooting this issue" reply, so it all seems to fit together. > > Cheers, > anthony > > > Anthony Anderberg > Sr. Systems Analyst > 320-234-5239 > anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net > www.nutelecom.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:40 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? > > We have bilateral sessions to them, not sure on the route reflectors. Can someone check logs/BGP uptime there? > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com > > > >> On Sep 27, 2016, at 10:25 PM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks for reaching out to your Google contacts. >> >> Are you saying that MICE's route reflectors have been seeing their BGP sessions to Google's cache boxes flapping over the last few days? >> >> Frank >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos >> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:16 PM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? >> >> We’ve had some issues with our sessions to the Google cache boxes flapping over the last few days. >> Checking with a few internal folks to Google, seemed like maybe there were a few other open tickets related to these cache boxes too. >> >> -- >> Andrew Hoyos >> hoyosa(a)gmail.com >> >> >> >>> On Sep 27, 2016, at 10:09 PM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)MYPREMIERONLINE.COM> wrote: >>> >>> Looks like it’s the Google LAG: >>> >>> <image001.png> >>> >>> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:07 PM >>> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? >>> >>> Saw our own MICE-facing traffic drop down, and I see MICE’s own aggregate is the same. >>> >>> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >>> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >>> >>

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: Election

by John Unger

Congrats Richard!!! Vaultas Team From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Reid Fishler Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 5:02 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Election The winner of today's election is Richard Laager. We thank all candidates, and we thank Shaun for his service! Reid and Jay ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening?

by Andrew Hoyos

That’s what we’re seeing too: er1.511.msp rpd[1461]: bgp_read_v4_message:10672: NOTIFICATION received from 206.108.255.37 (External AS 36040): code 6 (Cease) subcode 6 (Other Configuration Change) (which on JunOS, actually flaps the session) -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Sep 27, 2016, at 10:56 PM, anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net <anthonyanderberg(a)NU-TELECOM.NET> wrote: > > Looks the same as yesterday on both servers: > 206.108.255.37 BGP master up 22:38:09 Established > 2001:504:27:0:0:8cc8::1 BGP master start 22:42:34 Idle Received: Maximum number of prefixes reached > > But I see we've started getting these BIRD log messages: > 016-09-26 17:28:45 <RMT> NASN_36040: Received: Other configuration change > > Additionally my ping generated a "We're actively troubleshooting this issue" reply, so it all seems to fit together. > > Cheers, > anthony > > > Anthony Anderberg > Sr. Systems Analyst > 320-234-5239 > anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net > www.nutelecom.net > > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:40 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? > > We have bilateral sessions to them, not sure on the route reflectors. Can someone check logs/BGP uptime there? > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com > > > >> On Sep 27, 2016, at 10:25 PM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks for reaching out to your Google contacts. >> >> Are you saying that MICE's route reflectors have been seeing their BGP sessions to Google's cache boxes flapping over the last few days? >> >> Frank >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos >> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:16 PM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? >> >> We’ve had some issues with our sessions to the Google cache boxes flapping over the last few days. >> Checking with a few internal folks to Google, seemed like maybe there were a few other open tickets related to these cache boxes too. >> >> -- >> Andrew Hoyos >> hoyosa(a)gmail.com >> >> >> >>> On Sep 27, 2016, at 10:09 PM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)MYPREMIERONLINE.COM> wrote: >>> >>> Looks like it’s the Google LAG: >>> >>> <image001.png> >>> >>> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:07 PM >>> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? >>> >>> Saw our own MICE-facing traffic drop down, and I see MICE’s own aggregate is the same. >>> >>> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >>> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >>> >>

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening?

by anthonyanderberg＠nu-telecom.net

Looks the same as yesterday on both servers: 206.108.255.37 BGP master up 22:38:09 Established 2001:504:27:0:0:8cc8::1 BGP master start 22:42:34 Idle Received: Maximum number of prefixes reached But I see we've started getting these BIRD log messages: 016-09-26 17:28:45 <RMT> NASN_36040: Received: Other configuration change Additionally my ping generated a "We're actively troubleshooting this issue" reply, so it all seems to fit together. Cheers, anthony Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net www.nutelecom.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:40 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? We have bilateral sessions to them, not sure on the route reflectors. Can someone check logs/BGP uptime there? -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Sep 27, 2016, at 10:25 PM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: > > Thanks for reaching out to your Google contacts. > > Are you saying that MICE's route reflectors have been seeing their BGP sessions to Google's cache boxes flapping over the last few days? > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:16 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? > > We’ve had some issues with our sessions to the Google cache boxes flapping over the last few days. > Checking with a few internal folks to Google, seemed like maybe there were a few other open tickets related to these cache boxes too. > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com > > > >> On Sep 27, 2016, at 10:09 PM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)MYPREMIERONLINE.COM> wrote: >> >> Looks like it’s the Google LAG: >> >> <image001.png> >> >> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk >> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:07 PM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? >> >> Saw our own MICE-facing traffic drop down, and I see MICE’s own aggregate is the same. >> >> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >> >

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening?

by Andrew Hoyos

We have bilateral sessions to them, not sure on the route reflectors. Can someone check logs/BGP uptime there? -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Sep 27, 2016, at 10:25 PM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: > > Thanks for reaching out to your Google contacts. > > Are you saying that MICE's route reflectors have been seeing their BGP sessions to Google's cache boxes flapping over the last few days? > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:16 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? > > We’ve had some issues with our sessions to the Google cache boxes flapping over the last few days. > Checking with a few internal folks to Google, seemed like maybe there were a few other open tickets related to these cache boxes too. > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com > > > >> On Sep 27, 2016, at 10:09 PM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)MYPREMIERONLINE.COM> wrote: >> >> Looks like it’s the Google LAG: >> >> <image001.png> >> >> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk >> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:07 PM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? >> >> Saw our own MICE-facing traffic drop down, and I see MICE’s own aggregate is the same. >> >> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >> >

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening?

by Frank Bulk

Thanks for reaching out to your Google contacts. Are you saying that MICE's route reflectors have been seeing their BGP sessions to Google's cache boxes flapping over the last few days? Frank -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:16 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? We’ve had some issues with our sessions to the Google cache boxes flapping over the last few days. Checking with a few internal folks to Google, seemed like maybe there were a few other open tickets related to these cache boxes too. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Sep 27, 2016, at 10:09 PM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)MYPREMIERONLINE.COM> wrote: > > Looks like it’s the Google LAG: > > <image001.png> > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:07 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? > > Saw our own MICE-facing traffic drop down, and I see MICE’s own aggregate is the same. > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening?

by anthonyanderberg＠nu-telecom.net

Yesterday I noticed they were running into a limit to the number of IPv6 prefixes they'd accept from MICE (now over 15K) but hadn't seen any issues beyond that. Their GGC team said they were looking into it this morning, I'll ping them and mention these issues as well. Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net www.nutelecom.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:16 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? We’ve had some issues with our sessions to the Google cache boxes flapping over the last few days. Checking with a few internal folks to Google, seemed like maybe there were a few other open tickets related to these cache boxes too. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Sep 27, 2016, at 10:09 PM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)MYPREMIERONLINE.COM> wrote: > > Looks like it’s the Google LAG: > > <image001.png> > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:07 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? > > Saw our own MICE-facing traffic drop down, and I see MICE’s own aggregate is the same. > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening?

by Jeremy Lumby

The tech team has some open tickets at the moment with Google. They said they were escalating them. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:16 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? We’ve had some issues with our sessions to the Google cache boxes flapping over the last few days. Checking with a few internal folks to Google, seemed like maybe there were a few other open tickets related to these cache boxes too. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Sep 27, 2016, at 10:09 PM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)MYPREMIERONLINE.COM> wrote: > > Looks like it’s the Google LAG: > > <image001.png> > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:07 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? > > Saw our own MICE-facing traffic drop down, and I see MICE’s own aggregate is the same. > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening?

by Andrew Hoyos

We’ve had some issues with our sessions to the Google cache boxes flapping over the last few days. Checking with a few internal folks to Google, seemed like maybe there were a few other open tickets related to these cache boxes too. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Sep 27, 2016, at 10:09 PM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)MYPREMIERONLINE.COM> wrote: > > Looks like it’s the Google LAG: > > <image001.png> > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:07 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? > > Saw our own MICE-facing traffic drop down, and I see MICE’s own aggregate is the same. > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening?

by Frank Bulk

Looks like it's the Google LAG: [cid:image001.png@01D2190B.D3667E90] From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 10:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening? Saw our own MICE-facing traffic drop down, and I see MICE's own aggregate is the same.

Sept. 28, 2016

What's happening with MICE bandwidth this evening?

by Frank Bulk

Saw our own MICE-facing traffic drop down, and I see MICE's own aggregate is the same. [cid:image004.jpg@01D2190B.83B53030] [cid:image003.png@01D2190B.83A5EDF0] Frank

Sept. 28, 2016

Re: Election

by Levi Pederson

Congrats *Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net> wrote: > The winner of today's election is Richard Laager. We thank all > candidates, and we thank Shaun for his service! > > Reid and Jay > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Sept. 27, 2016

Re: Election

by DeLong, Owen

Congratulations, Richard. Owen On Sep 27, 2016, at 4:01 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)HE.NET<mailto:rfishler@he.net>> wrote: The winner of today's election is Richard Laager. We thank all candidates, and we thank Shaun for his service! Reid and Jay ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…>

Sept. 27, 2016

Election

by Reid Fishler

The winner of today's election is Richard Laager. We thank all candidates, and we thank Shaun for his service! Reid and Jay

Sept. 27, 2016

Corrected Agenda (time is 3 pm)

by Shaun Carlson

Please see attached. s *Shaun Carlson*Director of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

Sept. 27, 2016

Conference Bridge Info

by Jeremy Lumby

For today's meeting, we will have a simple audio only conference bridge for remote participants. 952-562-5400 Pin: 6423 Since it is a very basic bridge, I would encourage remote participants to keep their line muted until they are ready to talk, to reduce background noise.

Sept. 27, 2016