- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Technical Training at MTA Fall Conference, October 14th

by Shaun Carlson

Good afternoon! I wanted to let everyone know that the MTA IT Peer group is sponsoring some technical training at the MTA Fall conference on the morning of October 14th. The sessions being offered are: - Foundational Cyber Hygiene – How well do you know your environment?, Mike Rerick, Director of Managed Services, High Point Networks - Polymorphic attacks on data-in-motion creates challenges for both the service provider and end user, Bill Balmer - Protecting the Network with Firepower NGFW and OpenDNS, Andy Erickson, Adam Hardin All of the presentations will take place on Friday morning, October 14th. More details can be found here: http://www.mnta.org/events/EventDetails.aspx?id=851238 <https://followup.cc/l/10023405/e1d83ee16c70b4e2db5e7af1e8df29a2/http%3A%2F%…> I would like to encourage you to attend as the cost is simply the registration for the conference. Thanks! s *Shaun Carlson*Director of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

Sept. 21, 2016

Re: [Peering-lists] [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by DeLong, Owen

I’m a big fan of the QFX option if we’re going to buy new hardware. They’ve been rock solid and they’re very price attractive. Owen > On Sep 20, 2016, at 08:29 , Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sep 20, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)GEEKS.ORG> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:49:48AM -0500, Levi Pederson wrote: >> >>> A full chassis 8200 and 9200 would be a solid upgrade for all >>> pertinent points. >> >> I don't agree. > > Also don’t agree with the 8200/9200. Most line cards on the 8200 and 9200 are oversub’d anyway, and the space/ports ratio isn’t great. > >> Cost per port is high compared to running with 4500/45550 setup and >> can stack 10 deep as it is. > > I don’t know if I necessarily agree here either. The VC will quickly become a bottleneck if not already (32gb unidirectional traffic). > Also, no support for 40/100g. > > If money is being spent, something like an Arista 7504 or Juniper QFX 5100/5200’s would make more sense here and allow for some growth not entirely based on "more 10g ports". > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Sept. 21, 2016

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

by Mike Horwath

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:01:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > Probably makes sense to match the current version on the other > switches of 12.3R9-S1 Which has security problems and should be upgraded. Minimum should be 12.3R12 according to US-CERT notifications last week. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 21, 2016

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

by Ryan Goldberg

Pulled jinstall-ex-4200-12.3R12.4-domestic-signed just now. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:05 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants JTAC recommended is R12. Looking at the release notes, seems like a bunch of minor stuff, but a few PFE crash related fixes that apply to EX4200. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > Probably makes sense to match the current version on the other > switches of 12.3R9-S1 > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf > Of Ryan Goldberg > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 11:58 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > Ok, so I’ll leave the 4200-24 with the 2x 10gig and a stacking cable. > > Anyone have a firmware preference? Or just current juniper recommend? > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf > Of Ryan Goldberg > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:38 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > I’m only partially tracking the thread but wasn’t there going to be a normal 2 x 10gig LAG into the “new” switch? > > Either way, I have available today: > > 1 x 4200-48 poe with the 2 x sfp+ module and 2 x PS > 2 x 4200-24 with the 2 x sfp+ module and 2 x PS > 1 x 3300 > 1 x HP 28284 J > 3 x 4200/4500 stacking cables > > I can default and leave one of these in the mice cabinet. No extra optics or DACs today… I can leave a stacking cable though. > > I’d like to do the defaulting/(and firmwaring) this AM around 10:30 and would deliver to mice cabinet around 2pm. > > So, whoever wants to make the final “I’LL TAKE THAT ONE” call lemme know and I’ll deliver. > > You can also drop me a line at 218-390-5485. > > Ryan > > > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf > Of Levi Pederson > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:28 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > All, > > 3300's Can't join a Mixed 45**. We'd have to monitor it separately. Troubleshooting, monitoring and management would be easier with another 4200/4500/4550. > > Thank you, > > > Levi Pederson > Mankato Networks LLC > cell | 612.481.0769 > work | 612.787.7392 > levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com> wrote: > We may have a couple EX3300 as well. I can check tomorrow if there is any interest. > > > On Sep 20, 2016 4:50 PM, "Ryan Goldberg" <RGoldberg(a)compudyne.com> wrote: > provided my work tonight goes as planned I can leave a: > > FPC 2 REV 18 750-021255 BQ0209437984 EX4200-48P, 48 POE > CPU BUILTIN BUILTIN FPC CPU > PIC 0 BUILTIN BUILTIN 48x 10/100/1000 Base-T > PIC 1 REV 04 711-026017 CH0209419573 2x 10GE SFP+ > > > in the mice cabinet (or elsewhere). > > note: no optics... but I could leave a couple DACs probably > > I could leave 24 port non-POE 4200 if preferred. Why do I have 48 port poe switch at 511? So many questions.... > > Or........ I may have a 3300-24 available, which gives 4x SFP+ instead. > > Any preferences whilst I rummage through my oddball grab bag? > > > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of > Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM> > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > I am in favor, THANKS GUYS!!! > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf > Of Jason Hanke > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > Compudyne has offered to donate an EX4200 with a 2x10G uplink card to MICE to help the cause. > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > I am in favor of a regular layer 2 uplink. I think the main reason I feel this way is it is industry standard, and then the switch has its own forwarding table. We have seen issues in the past where if the link on a high volume port goes down, the MAC gets removed from the forwarding table, and then all of that traffic gets flooded to all other ports until BGP times out. This seems to be especially problematic when it hits the 1G ports. > > My vision of a future upgrade would be something along the lines of a 5200, or equiv from another manufacturer that has all of the other switches uplinked to it. Then we would have separate forwarding tables, a place to connect remote switches, as well as something that has some 40G, and 100G capabilities. All of the uplinks would then be easy to monitor/graph without excessive load on the switch. Copper SFP+/QSFP+ cables can be used between switches and they are affordable/easy to come by. > > Jeremy > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf > Of Doug McIntyre > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:15 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can > > leave the 4200 without going across a vcp > > Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that > are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G > card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run > virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other switches. > > Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off > the 4200 altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. > Then we wouldn't have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either. > > > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have "vcp-1" in them? > > As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive, > there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now, and > I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200. > > We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously. > That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it > is an issue with the device itself. > > Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it). > > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > > > > -- > 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 > > > 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 > > > > 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 > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Sept. 21, 2016

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

by Andrew Hoyos

JTAC recommended is R12. Looking at the release notes, seems like a bunch of minor stuff, but a few PFE crash related fixes that apply to EX4200. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > Probably makes sense to match the current version on the other switches of 12.3R9-S1 > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 11:58 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants > > Ok, so I’ll leave the 4200-24 with the 2x 10gig and a stacking cable. > > Anyone have a firmware preference? Or just current juniper recommend? > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:38 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants > > I’m only partially tracking the thread but wasn’t there going to be a normal 2 x 10gig LAG into the “new” switch? > > Either way, I have available today: > > 1 x 4200-48 poe with the 2 x sfp+ module and 2 x PS > 2 x 4200-24 with the 2 x sfp+ module and 2 x PS > 1 x 3300 > 1 x HP 28284 J > 3 x 4200/4500 stacking cables > > I can default and leave one of these in the mice cabinet. No extra optics or DACs today… I can leave a stacking cable though. > > I’d like to do the defaulting/(and firmwaring) this AM around 10:30 and would deliver to mice cabinet around 2pm. > > So, whoever wants to make the final “I’LL TAKE THAT ONE” call lemme know and I’ll deliver. > > You can also drop me a line at 218-390-5485. > > Ryan > > > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Levi Pederson > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:28 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants > > All, > > 3300's Can't join a Mixed 45**. We'd have to monitor it separately. Troubleshooting, monitoring and management would be easier with another 4200/4500/4550. > > Thank you, > > > Levi Pederson > Mankato Networks LLC > cell | 612.481.0769 > work | 612.787.7392 > levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com> wrote: > We may have a couple EX3300 as well. I can check tomorrow if there is any interest. > > > On Sep 20, 2016 4:50 PM, "Ryan Goldberg" <RGoldberg(a)compudyne.com> wrote: > provided my work tonight goes as planned I can leave a: > > FPC 2 REV 18 750-021255 BQ0209437984 EX4200-48P, 48 POE > CPU BUILTIN BUILTIN FPC CPU > PIC 0 BUILTIN BUILTIN 48x 10/100/1000 Base-T > PIC 1 REV 04 711-026017 CH0209419573 2x 10GE SFP+ > > > in the mice cabinet (or elsewhere). > > note: no optics... but I could leave a couple DACs probably > > I could leave 24 port non-POE 4200 if preferred. Why do I have 48 port poe switch at 511? So many questions.... > > Or........ I may have a 3300-24 available, which gives 4x SFP+ instead. > > Any preferences whilst I rummage through my oddball grab bag? > > > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM> > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants > > I am in favor, THANKS GUYS!!! > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants > > Compudyne has offered to donate an EX4200 with a 2x10G uplink card to MICE to help the cause. > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > I am in favor of a regular layer 2 uplink. I think the main reason I feel this way is it is industry standard, and then the switch has its own forwarding table. We have seen issues in the past where if the link on a high volume port goes down, the MAC gets removed from the forwarding table, and then all of that traffic gets flooded to all other ports until BGP times out. This seems to be especially problematic when it hits the 1G ports. > > My vision of a future upgrade would be something along the lines of a 5200, or equiv from another manufacturer that has all of the other switches uplinked to it. Then we would have separate forwarding tables, a place to connect remote switches, as well as something that has some 40G, and 100G capabilities. All of the uplinks would then be easy to monitor/graph without excessive load on the switch. Copper SFP+/QSFP+ cables can be used between switches and they are affordable/easy to come by. > > Jeremy > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:15 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can leave the 4200 without going across a vcp > > Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that > are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G > card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run > virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other switches. > > Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off the 4200 > altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. Then we wouldn't > have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either. > > > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have "vcp-1" in them? > > As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive, > there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now, > and I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200. > > We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously. > That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it is > an issue with the device itself. > > Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it). > > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > > > > -- > 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 > > > 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 > > > > 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 > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Sept. 21, 2016

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

by Jeremy Lumby

Probably makes sense to match the current version on the other switches of 12.3R9-S1 From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 11:58 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Ok, so I’ll leave the 4200-24 with the 2x 10gig and a stacking cable. Anyone have a firmware preference? Or just current juniper recommend? From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:38 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants I’m only partially tracking the thread but wasn’t there going to be a normal 2 x 10gig LAG into the “new” switch? Either way, I have available today: 1 x 4200-48 poe with the 2 x sfp+ module and 2 x PS 2 x 4200-24 with the 2 x sfp+ module and 2 x PS 1 x 3300 1 x HP 28284 J 3 x 4200/4500 stacking cables I can default and leave one of these in the mice cabinet. No extra optics or DACs today… I can leave a stacking cable though. I’d like to do the defaulting/(and firmwaring) this AM around 10:30 and would deliver to mice cabinet around 2pm. So, whoever wants to make the final “I’LL TAKE THAT ONE” call lemme know and I’ll deliver. You can also drop me a line at 218-390-5485. Ryan From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Levi Pederson Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:28 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants All, 3300's Can't join a Mixed 45**. We'd have to monitor it separately. Troubleshooting, monitoring and management would be easier with another 4200/4500/4550. Thank you, Levi Pederson Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com> wrote: We may have a couple EX3300 as well. I can check tomorrow if there is any interest. On Sep 20, 2016 4:50 PM, "Ryan Goldberg" <RGoldberg(a)compudyne.com> wrote: provided my work tonight goes as planned I can leave a: FPC 2 REV 18 750-021255 BQ0209437984 EX4200-48P, 48 POE CPU BUILTIN BUILTIN FPC CPU PIC 0 BUILTIN BUILTIN 48x 10/100/1000 Base-T PIC 1 REV 04 711-026017 CH0209419573 2x 10GE SFP+ in the mice cabinet (or elsewhere). note: no optics... but I could leave a couple DACs probably I could leave 24 port non-POE 4200 if preferred. Why do I have 48 port poe switch at 511? So many questions.... Or........ I may have a 3300-24 available, which gives 4x SFP+ instead. Any preferences whilst I rummage through my oddball grab bag? From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants I am in favor, THANKS GUYS!!! From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Compudyne has offered to donate an EX4200 with a 2x10G uplink card to MICE to help the cause. On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: I am in favor of a regular layer 2 uplink. I think the main reason I feel this way is it is industry standard, and then the switch has its own forwarding table. We have seen issues in the past where if the link on a high volume port goes down, the MAC gets removed from the forwarding table, and then all of that traffic gets flooded to all other ports until BGP times out. This seems to be especially problematic when it hits the 1G ports. My vision of a future upgrade would be something along the lines of a 5200, or equiv from another manufacturer that has all of the other switches uplinked to it. Then we would have separate forwarding tables, a place to connect remote switches, as well as something that has some 40G, and 100G capabilities. All of the uplinks would then be easy to monitor/graph without excessive load on the switch. Copper SFP+/QSFP+ cables can be used between switches and they are affordable/easy to come by. Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:15 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can leave the 4200 without going across a vcp Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other switches. Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off the 4200 altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. Then we wouldn't have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either. > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have "vcp-1" in them? As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive, there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now, and I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200. We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously. That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it is an issue with the device itself. Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it). -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades -- 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 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 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

Sept. 21, 2016

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

by Ryan Goldberg

Ok, so I’ll leave the 4200-24 with the 2x 10gig and a stacking cable. Anyone have a firmware preference? Or just current juniper recommend? From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:38 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants I’m only partially tracking the thread but wasn’t there going to be a normal 2 x 10gig LAG into the “new” switch? Either way, I have available today: 1 x 4200-48 poe with the 2 x sfp+ module and 2 x PS 2 x 4200-24 with the 2 x sfp+ module and 2 x PS 1 x 3300 1 x HP 28284 ☺ 3 x 4200/4500 stacking cables I can default and leave one of these in the mice cabinet. No extra optics or DACs today… I can leave a stacking cable though. I’d like to do the defaulting/(and firmwaring) this AM around 10:30 and would deliver to mice cabinet around 2pm. So, whoever wants to make the final “I’LL TAKE THAT ONE” call lemme know and I’ll deliver. You can also drop me a line at 218-390-5485. Ryan From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Levi Pederson Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:28 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants All, 3300's Can't join a Mixed 45**. We'd have to monitor it separately. Troubleshooting, monitoring and management would be easier with another 4200/4500/4550. Thank you, Levi Pederson Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net<mailto:levipederson@mankatonetworks.net> [http://www.mankatonetworks.com/images/mn_logo_email.png] On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com<mailto:ben.wiechman@arvig.com>> wrote: We may have a couple EX3300 as well. I can check tomorrow if there is any interest. On Sep 20, 2016 4:50 PM, "Ryan Goldberg" <RGoldberg(a)compudyne.com<mailto:RGoldberg@compudyne.com>> wrote: provided my work tonight goes as planned I can leave a: FPC 2 REV 18 750-021255 BQ0209437984 EX4200-48P, 48 POE CPU BUILTIN BUILTIN FPC CPU PIC 0 BUILTIN BUILTIN 48x 10/100/1000 Base-T PIC 1 REV 04 711-026017 CH0209419573 2x 10GE SFP+ in the mice cabinet (or elsewhere). note: no optics... but I could leave a couple DACs probably I could leave 24 port non-POE 4200 if preferred. Why do I have 48 port poe switch at 511? So many questions.... Or........ I may have a 3300-24 available, which gives 4x SFP+ instead. Any preferences whilst I rummage through my oddball grab bag? ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM<mailto:jlumby@MNVOIP.COM>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants I am in favor, THANKS GUYS!!! From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Compudyne has offered to donate an EX4200 with a 2x10G uplink card to MICE to help the cause. On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: I am in favor of a regular layer 2 uplink. I think the main reason I feel this way is it is industry standard, and then the switch has its own forwarding table. We have seen issues in the past where if the link on a high volume port goes down, the MAC gets removed from the forwarding table, and then all of that traffic gets flooded to all other ports until BGP times out. This seems to be especially problematic when it hits the 1G ports. My vision of a future upgrade would be something along the lines of a 5200, or equiv from another manufacturer that has all of the other switches uplinked to it. Then we would have separate forwarding tables, a place to connect remote switches, as well as something that has some 40G, and 100G capabilities. All of the uplinks would then be easy to monitor/graph without excessive load on the switch. Copper SFP+/QSFP+ cables can be used between switches and they are affordable/easy to come by. Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:15 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can leave the 4200 without going across a vcp Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other switches. Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off the 4200 altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. Then we wouldn't have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either. > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have "vcp-1" in them? As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive, there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now, and I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200. We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously. That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it is an issue with the device itself. Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it). -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net<mailto:merlyn@iphouse.net>> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398<tel:%28507%29%20327-2398> 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 ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ 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. 21, 2016

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

by Levi Pederson

All, Never said it was impossible. But more cumbersome. Cheers, *Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)geeks.org> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:27:33AM -0500, Levi Pederson wrote: > > All, > > > > 3300's Can't join a Mixed 45**. We'd have to monitor it separately. > > Troubleshooting, monitoring and management would be easier with > > another 4200/4500/4550. > > Can totally be monitored. > > L2 trunk them into the current 45xx stack and go to town. > > Give them an IP address and you're golden. > > -- > Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG >

Sept. 21, 2016

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

by Mike Horwath

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:27:33AM -0500, Levi Pederson wrote: > All, > > 3300's Can't join a Mixed 45**. We'd have to monitor it separately. > Troubleshooting, monitoring and management would be easier with > another 4200/4500/4550. Can totally be monitored. L2 trunk them into the current 45xx stack and go to town. Give them an IP address and you're golden. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 21, 2016

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

by Ryan Goldberg

I’m only partially tracking the thread but wasn’t there going to be a normal 2 x 10gig LAG into the “new” switch? Either way, I have available today: 1 x 4200-48 poe with the 2 x sfp+ module and 2 x PS 2 x 4200-24 with the 2 x sfp+ module and 2 x PS 1 x 3300 1 x HP 28284 ☺ 3 x 4200/4500 stacking cables I can default and leave one of these in the mice cabinet. No extra optics or DACs today… I can leave a stacking cable though. I’d like to do the defaulting/(and firmwaring) this AM around 10:30 and would deliver to mice cabinet around 2pm. So, whoever wants to make the final “I’LL TAKE THAT ONE” call lemme know and I’ll deliver. You can also drop me a line at 218-390-5485. Ryan From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Levi Pederson Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:28 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants All, 3300's Can't join a Mixed 45**. We'd have to monitor it separately. Troubleshooting, monitoring and management would be easier with another 4200/4500/4550. Thank you, Levi Pederson Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net<mailto:levipederson@mankatonetworks.net> [http://www.mankatonetworks.com/images/mn_logo_email.png] On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com<mailto:ben.wiechman@arvig.com>> wrote: We may have a couple EX3300 as well. I can check tomorrow if there is any interest. On Sep 20, 2016 4:50 PM, "Ryan Goldberg" <RGoldberg(a)compudyne.com<mailto:RGoldberg@compudyne.com>> wrote: provided my work tonight goes as planned I can leave a: FPC 2 REV 18 750-021255 BQ0209437984 EX4200-48P, 48 POE CPU BUILTIN BUILTIN FPC CPU PIC 0 BUILTIN BUILTIN 48x 10/100/1000 Base-T PIC 1 REV 04 711-026017 CH0209419573 2x 10GE SFP+ in the mice cabinet (or elsewhere). note: no optics... but I could leave a couple DACs probably I could leave 24 port non-POE 4200 if preferred. Why do I have 48 port poe switch at 511? So many questions.... Or........ I may have a 3300-24 available, which gives 4x SFP+ instead. Any preferences whilst I rummage through my oddball grab bag? ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM<mailto:jlumby@MNVOIP.COM>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants I am in favor, THANKS GUYS!!! From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Compudyne has offered to donate an EX4200 with a 2x10G uplink card to MICE to help the cause. On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: I am in favor of a regular layer 2 uplink. I think the main reason I feel this way is it is industry standard, and then the switch has its own forwarding table. We have seen issues in the past where if the link on a high volume port goes down, the MAC gets removed from the forwarding table, and then all of that traffic gets flooded to all other ports until BGP times out. This seems to be especially problematic when it hits the 1G ports. My vision of a future upgrade would be something along the lines of a 5200, or equiv from another manufacturer that has all of the other switches uplinked to it. Then we would have separate forwarding tables, a place to connect remote switches, as well as something that has some 40G, and 100G capabilities. All of the uplinks would then be easy to monitor/graph without excessive load on the switch. Copper SFP+/QSFP+ cables can be used between switches and they are affordable/easy to come by. Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:15 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can leave the 4200 without going across a vcp Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other switches. Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off the 4200 altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. Then we wouldn't have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either. > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have "vcp-1" in them? As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive, there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now, and I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200. We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously. That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it is an issue with the device itself. Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it). -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net<mailto:merlyn@iphouse.net>> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398<tel:%28507%29%20327-2398> 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 ________________________________ 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 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 21, 2016

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

by Levi Pederson

All, 3300's Can't join a Mixed 45**. We'd have to monitor it separately. Troubleshooting, monitoring and management would be easier with another 4200/4500/4550. Thank you, *Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com> wrote: > We may have a couple EX3300 as well. I can check tomorrow if there is any > interest. > > On Sep 20, 2016 4:50 PM, "Ryan Goldberg" <RGoldberg(a)compudyne.com> wrote: > >> provided my work tonight goes as planned I can leave a: >> >> FPC 2 REV 18 750-021255 BQ0209437984 EX4200-48P, 48 >> POE >> CPU BUILTIN BUILTIN FPC CPU >> PIC 0 BUILTIN BUILTIN 48x 10/100/1000 >> Base-T >> PIC 1 REV 04 711-026017 CH0209419573 2x 10GE SFP+ >> >> >> in the mice cabinet (or elsewhere). >> >> note: no optics... but I could leave a couple DACs probably >> >> I could leave 24 port non-POE 4200 if preferred. Why do I have 48 port >> poe switch at 511? So many questions.... >> >> Or........ I may have a 3300-24 available, which gives 4x SFP+ instead. >> >> Any preferences whilst I rummage through my oddball grab bag? >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of >> Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM >> *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G >> Participants >> >> >> I am in favor, THANKS GUYS!!! >> >> >> >> *From:* MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] *On Behalf >> Of *Jason Hanke >> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM >> *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G >> Participants >> >> >> >> Compudyne has offered to donate an EX4200 with a 2x10G uplink card to >> MICE to help the cause. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: >> >> I am in favor of a regular layer 2 uplink. I think the main reason I >> feel this way is it is industry standard, and then the switch has its own >> forwarding table. We have seen issues in the past where if the link on a >> high volume port goes down, the MAC gets removed from the forwarding table, >> and then all of that traffic gets flooded to all other ports until BGP >> times out. This seems to be especially problematic when it hits the 1G >> ports. >> >> My vision of a future upgrade would be something along the lines of a >> 5200, or equiv from another manufacturer that has all of the other switches >> uplinked to it. Then we would have separate forwarding tables, a place to >> connect remote switches, as well as something that has some 40G, and 100G >> capabilities. All of the uplinks would then be easy to monitor/graph >> without excessive load on the switch. Copper SFP+/QSFP+ cables can be used >> between switches and they are affordable/easy to come by. >> >> Jeremy >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of >> Doug McIntyre >> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:15 PM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G >> Participants >> >> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: >> > That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can leave >> the 4200 without going across a vcp >> >> Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that >> are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G >> card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run >> virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other >> switches. >> >> Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off the >> 4200 >> altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. Then we >> wouldn't >> have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either. >> >> > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have >> "vcp-1" in them? >> >> As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive, >> there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now, >> and I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200. >> >> We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously. >> That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it is >> an issue with the device itself. >> >> Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it). >> >> >> -- >> Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> >> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ >> Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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 >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> 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 >

Sept. 21, 2016

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

by Ben Wiechman

We may have a couple EX3300 as well. I can check tomorrow if there is any interest. On Sep 20, 2016 4:50 PM, "Ryan Goldberg" <RGoldberg(a)compudyne.com> wrote: > provided my work tonight goes as planned I can leave a: > > FPC 2 REV 18 750-021255 BQ0209437984 EX4200-48P, 48 POE > CPU BUILTIN BUILTIN FPC CPU > PIC 0 BUILTIN BUILTIN 48x 10/100/1000 > Base-T > PIC 1 REV 04 711-026017 CH0209419573 2x 10GE SFP+ > > > in the mice cabinet (or elsewhere). > > note: no optics... but I could leave a couple DACs probably > > I could leave 24 port non-POE 4200 if preferred. Why do I have 48 port > poe switch at 511? So many questions.... > > Or........ I may have a 3300-24 available, which gives 4x SFP+ instead. > > Any preferences whilst I rummage through my oddball grab bag? > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy > Lumby <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM> > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > > I am in favor, THANKS GUYS!!! > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] *On Behalf > Of *Jason Hanke > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > > > Compudyne has offered to donate an EX4200 with a 2x10G uplink card to MICE > to help the cause. > > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > I am in favor of a regular layer 2 uplink. I think the main reason I feel > this way is it is industry standard, and then the switch has its own > forwarding table. We have seen issues in the past where if the link on a > high volume port goes down, the MAC gets removed from the forwarding table, > and then all of that traffic gets flooded to all other ports until BGP > times out. This seems to be especially problematic when it hits the 1G > ports. > > My vision of a future upgrade would be something along the lines of a > 5200, or equiv from another manufacturer that has all of the other switches > uplinked to it. Then we would have separate forwarding tables, a place to > connect remote switches, as well as something that has some 40G, and 100G > capabilities. All of the uplinks would then be easy to monitor/graph > without excessive load on the switch. Copper SFP+/QSFP+ cables can be used > between switches and they are affordable/easy to come by. > > Jeremy > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of > Doug McIntyre > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:15 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can leave > the 4200 without going across a vcp > > Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that > are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G > card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run > virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other > switches. > > Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off the > 4200 > altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. Then we > wouldn't > have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either. > > > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have > "vcp-1" in them? > > As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive, > there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now, > and I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200. > > We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously. > That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it is > an issue with the device itself. > > Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it). > > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > 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. 21, 2016

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

by Mike Horwath

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 03:24:29PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: > If my math is correct, it will free up some VCP bandwidth and also > eliminate the mixed mode configuration. So, you think the VCP is getting saturated? Doug has posted a couple of copy/pastes and so far I don't see it. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Jeremy Lumby

The 24 port would probably be plenty since people have been upgrading to 10G, plus it matches what we have now. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 4:40 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants provided my work tonight goes as planned I can leave a: FPC 2 REV 18 750-021255 BQ0209437984 EX4200-48P, 48 POE CPU BUILTIN BUILTIN FPC CPU PIC 0 BUILTIN BUILTIN 48x 10/100/1000 Base-T PIC 1 REV 04 711-026017 CH0209419573 2x 10GE SFP+ in the mice cabinet (or elsewhere). note: no optics... but I could leave a couple DACs probably I could leave 24 port non-POE 4200 if preferred. Why do I have 48 port poe switch at 511? So many questions.... Or........ I may have a 3300-24 available, which gives 4x SFP+ instead. Any preferences whilst I rummage through my oddball grab bag? From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants I am in favor, THANKS GUYS!!! From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Compudyne has offered to donate an EX4200 with a 2x10G uplink card to MICE to help the cause. On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: I am in favor of a regular layer 2 uplink. I think the main reason I feel this way is it is industry standard, and then the switch has its own forwarding table. We have seen issues in the past where if the link on a high volume port goes down, the MAC gets removed from the forwarding table, and then all of that traffic gets flooded to all other ports until BGP times out. This seems to be especially problematic when it hits the 1G ports. My vision of a future upgrade would be something along the lines of a 5200, or equiv from another manufacturer that has all of the other switches uplinked to it. Then we would have separate forwarding tables, a place to connect remote switches, as well as something that has some 40G, and 100G capabilities. All of the uplinks would then be easy to monitor/graph without excessive load on the switch. Copper SFP+/QSFP+ cables can be used between switches and they are affordable/easy to come by. Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:15 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can leave the 4200 without going across a vcp Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other switches. Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off the 4200 altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. Then we wouldn't have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either. > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have "vcp-1" in them? As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive, there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now, and I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200. We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously. That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it is an issue with the device itself. Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it). -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades -- 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 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. 20, 2016

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

by Ryan Goldberg

provided my work tonight goes as planned I can leave a: FPC 2 REV 18 750-021255 BQ0209437984 EX4200-48P, 48 POE CPU BUILTIN BUILTIN FPC CPU PIC 0 BUILTIN BUILTIN 48x 10/100/1000 Base-T PIC 1 REV 04 711-026017 CH0209419573 2x 10GE SFP+ in the mice cabinet (or elsewhere). note: no optics... but I could leave a couple DACs probably I could leave 24 port non-POE 4200 if preferred. Why do I have 48 port poe switch at 511? So many questions.... Or........ I may have a 3300-24 available, which gives 4x SFP+ instead. Any preferences whilst I rummage through my oddball grab bag? ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants I am in favor, THANKS GUYS!!! From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Compudyne has offered to donate an EX4200 with a 2x10G uplink card to MICE to help the cause. On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: I am in favor of a regular layer 2 uplink. I think the main reason I feel this way is it is industry standard, and then the switch has its own forwarding table. We have seen issues in the past where if the link on a high volume port goes down, the MAC gets removed from the forwarding table, and then all of that traffic gets flooded to all other ports until BGP times out. This seems to be especially problematic when it hits the 1G ports. My vision of a future upgrade would be something along the lines of a 5200, or equiv from another manufacturer that has all of the other switches uplinked to it. Then we would have separate forwarding tables, a place to connect remote switches, as well as something that has some 40G, and 100G capabilities. All of the uplinks would then be easy to monitor/graph without excessive load on the switch. Copper SFP+/QSFP+ cables can be used between switches and they are affordable/easy to come by. Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:15 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can leave the 4200 without going across a vcp Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other switches. Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off the 4200 altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. Then we wouldn't have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either. > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have "vcp-1" in them? As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive, there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now, and I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200. We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously. That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it is an issue with the device itself. Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it). -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net<mailto:merlyn@iphouse.net>> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades -- 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 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2016

Call for Agenda

by Shaun Carlson

All, Please send me any agenda items you'd like added for next week's meeting. I'm working on assembling the agenda. Thanks! s *Shaun Carlson*Director of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Jeremy Lumby

I am in favor, THANKS GUYS!!! From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Compudyne has offered to donate an EX4200 with a 2x10G uplink card to MICE to help the cause. On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: I am in favor of a regular layer 2 uplink. I think the main reason I feel this way is it is industry standard, and then the switch has its own forwarding table. We have seen issues in the past where if the link on a high volume port goes down, the MAC gets removed from the forwarding table, and then all of that traffic gets flooded to all other ports until BGP times out. This seems to be especially problematic when it hits the 1G ports. My vision of a future upgrade would be something along the lines of a 5200, or equiv from another manufacturer that has all of the other switches uplinked to it. Then we would have separate forwarding tables, a place to connect remote switches, as well as something that has some 40G, and 100G capabilities. All of the uplinks would then be easy to monitor/graph without excessive load on the switch. Copper SFP+/QSFP+ cables can be used between switches and they are affordable/easy to come by. Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:15 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can leave the 4200 without going across a vcp Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other switches. Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off the 4200 altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. Then we wouldn't have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either. > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have "vcp-1" in them? As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive, there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now, and I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200. We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously. That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it is an issue with the device itself. Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it). -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades -- 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. 20, 2016

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

by Jason Hanke

Compudyne has offered to donate an EX4200 with a 2x10G uplink card to MICE to help the cause. On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > I am in favor of a regular layer 2 uplink. I think the main reason I feel > this way is it is industry standard, and then the switch has its own > forwarding table. We have seen issues in the past where if the link on a > high volume port goes down, the MAC gets removed from the forwarding table, > and then all of that traffic gets flooded to all other ports until BGP > times out. This seems to be especially problematic when it hits the 1G > ports. > > My vision of a future upgrade would be something along the lines of a > 5200, or equiv from another manufacturer that has all of the other switches > uplinked to it. Then we would have separate forwarding tables, a place to > connect remote switches, as well as something that has some 40G, and 100G > capabilities. All of the uplinks would then be easy to monitor/graph > without excessive load on the switch. Copper SFP+/QSFP+ cables can be used > between switches and they are affordable/easy to come by. > > Jeremy > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of > Doug McIntyre > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:15 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can leave > the 4200 without going across a vcp > > Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that > are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G > card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run > virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other > switches. > > Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off the > 4200 > altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. Then we > wouldn't > have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either. > > > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have > "vcp-1" in them? > > As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive, > there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now, > and I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200. > > We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously. > That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it is > an issue with the device itself. > > Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it). > > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > -- 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. 20, 2016

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

by Jeremy Lumby

I am in favor of a regular layer 2 uplink. I think the main reason I feel this way is it is industry standard, and then the switch has its own forwarding table. We have seen issues in the past where if the link on a high volume port goes down, the MAC gets removed from the forwarding table, and then all of that traffic gets flooded to all other ports until BGP times out. This seems to be especially problematic when it hits the 1G ports. My vision of a future upgrade would be something along the lines of a 5200, or equiv from another manufacturer that has all of the other switches uplinked to it. Then we would have separate forwarding tables, a place to connect remote switches, as well as something that has some 40G, and 100G capabilities. All of the uplinks would then be easy to monitor/graph without excessive load on the switch. Copper SFP+/QSFP+ cables can be used between switches and they are affordable/easy to come by. Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:15 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can leave the 4200 without going across a vcp Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other switches. Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off the 4200 altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. Then we wouldn't have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either. > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have "vcp-1" in them? As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive, there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now, and I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200. We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously. That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it is an issue with the device itself. Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it). -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Jason Hanke

I'd suggest that we pick up an additional EX4200 and uplink it at layer2 to the main stack at 2x10G. Then move all of the 1G copper links to the new switch. The current switch could then be a spare, VCed into a 4200 only cluster, or uplinked from another suite. If my math is correct, it will free up some VCP bandwidth and also eliminate the mixed mode configuration. On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can leave > the 4200 without going across a vcp > > Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that > are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G > card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run > virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other > switches. > > Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off the > 4200 > altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. Then we > wouldn't > have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either. > > > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have > "vcp-1" in them? > > As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive, > there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now, > and I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200. > > We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously. > That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it is > an issue with the device itself. > > Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it). > > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > -- 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. 20, 2016

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

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 02:23:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can leave the 4200 without going across a vcp Most likely we'd have to kick off (umm. move) the three members that are fiber 1G connections in the expansion slot on the 4200, get a 10G card, optics for both sides, etc. Then decide if we are going to run virtual chassis protocol, or just layer-2 uplink into the two other switches. Or we move the 19 active 1G copper members + 3 1G fiber members off the 4200 altogether and eat up ports on the 4550 with 19 copper SFPs. Then we wouldn't have to do "Mixed-mode Virtual-Chassis" then either. > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have "vcp-1" in them? As I've stated multiple times, I think since VCP is active/passive, there is only one active ring around the the VC through VCP-1 now, and I would expect to see vcp-1 in all paths through the EX4200. We can swap active and passive with the command I posted previously. That way we can troubleshoot if there is a port/cable issue, or if it is an issue with the device itself. Or it could be a defect in this coderev (although I doubt it). -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Jeremy Lumby

That would make sense, then we are just down to how traffic can leave the 4200 without going across a vcp From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 2:11 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants I think the internal port is the opposite pfe in the same chassis. IIRC EX4200 is two pfe in the same box, EX3200 is one pfe On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: I agree, I am confused to what the second two mean as well. I was surprised to see internal 1/24, as well as no intermediate interface in the lossless ones. I expected to see all vcp-1 or vcp-0 in the middle From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Matthew Beckwell Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 1:51 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Yeah, we should set aside the ae5 test data for the moment...because I agree it's confusing when it's split across 2 switches. I'd have to rely on someone who speaks Juniper as to what the various paths mean.... "vcp-1" vs "internal-1/24" vs nothing?... Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have "vcp-1" in them? ~Matthew On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: Matthew, The switch throws out an error if I set the destination port as an agg port. However I did all of their member ports individually if that helps you. Personally I think AE bundles on different switches should probably be ignored as data points to keep the troubleshooting straightforward. jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...ce ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/11 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-2/0/11 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 2 6 xe-2/0/11 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...ce ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/35 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/35 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 1 3 internal-1/24 2 0 1 xe-0/0/35 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/3 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/3 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 2 6 vcp-1 2 0 0 xe-0/0/3 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...e-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/13 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/13 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 2 6 vcp-1 2 0 0 xe-0/0/13 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/29 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/29 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 1 3 internal-1/24 2 0 1 xe-0/0/29 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/38 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/38 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 1 3 internal-1/24 2 0 1 xe-0/0/38 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/15 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-2/0/15 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 2 6 xe-2/0/15 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 To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Jason Hanke

I think the internal port is the opposite pfe in the same chassis. IIRC EX4200 is two pfe in the same box, EX3200 is one pfe On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > I agree, I am confused to what the second two mean as well. I was > surprised to see internal 1/24, as well as no intermediate interface in the > lossless ones. I expected to see all vcp-1 or vcp-0 in the middle > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] *On Behalf > Of *Matthew Beckwell > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 1:51 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > > > Yeah, we should set aside the ae5 test data for the moment...because I > agree it's confusing when it's split across 2 switches. > > > > I'd have to rely on someone who speaks Juniper as to what the various > paths mean.... > > "vcp-1" vs "internal-1/24" vs nothing?... > > > > Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have > "vcp-1" in them? > > ~Matthew > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > Matthew, > > > > The switch throws out an error if I set the destination > port as an agg port. However I did all of their member ports individually > if that helps you. Personally I think AE bundles on different switches > should probably be ignored as data points to keep the troubleshooting > straightforward. > > > > jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...ce ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/11 > > vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-2/0/11 > > Hop Member PFE-Device Interface > > 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 > > 1 2 6 xe-2/0/11 > > > > {master:1} > > jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...ce ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/35 > > vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/35 > > Hop Member PFE-Device Interface > > 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 > > 1 1 3 internal-1/24 > > 2 0 1 xe-0/0/35 > > > > {master:1} > > jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/3 > > vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/3 > > Hop Member PFE-Device Interface > > 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 > > 1 2 6 vcp-1 > > 2 0 0 xe-0/0/3 > > > > {master:1} > > jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...e-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/13 > > vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/13 > > Hop Member PFE-Device Interface > > 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 > > 1 2 6 vcp-1 > > 2 0 0 xe-0/0/13 > > > > {master:1} > > jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/29 > > vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/29 > > Hop Member PFE-Device Interface > > 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 > > 1 1 3 internal-1/24 > > 2 0 1 xe-0/0/29 > > > > {master:1} > > jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/38 > > vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/38 > > Hop Member PFE-Device Interface > > 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 > > 1 1 3 internal-1/24 > > 2 0 1 xe-0/0/38 > > > > {master:1} > > jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/15 > > vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-2/0/15 > > Hop Member PFE-Device Interface > > 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 > > 1 2 6 xe-2/0/15 > > > ------------------------------ > > 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. 20, 2016

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

by Jeremy Lumby

I agree, I am confused to what the second two mean as well. I was surprised to see internal 1/24, as well as no intermediate interface in the lossless ones. I expected to see all vcp-1 or vcp-0 in the middle From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Matthew Beckwell Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 1:51 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Yeah, we should set aside the ae5 test data for the moment...because I agree it's confusing when it's split across 2 switches. I'd have to rely on someone who speaks Juniper as to what the various paths mean.... "vcp-1" vs "internal-1/24" vs nothing?... Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have "vcp-1" in them? ~Matthew On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: Matthew, The switch throws out an error if I set the destination port as an agg port. However I did all of their member ports individually if that helps you. Personally I think AE bundles on different switches should probably be ignored as data points to keep the troubleshooting straightforward. jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...ce ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/11 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-2/0/11 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 2 6 xe-2/0/11 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...ce ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/35 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/35 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 1 3 internal-1/24 2 0 1 xe-0/0/35 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/3 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/3 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 2 6 vcp-1 2 0 0 xe-0/0/3 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...e-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/13 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/13 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 2 6 vcp-1 2 0 0 xe-0/0/13 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/29 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/29 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 1 3 internal-1/24 2 0 1 xe-0/0/29 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/38 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/38 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 1 3 internal-1/24 2 0 1 xe-0/0/38 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/15 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-2/0/15 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 2 6 xe-2/0/15 To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Matthew Beckwell

Yeah, we should set aside the ae5 test data for the moment...because I agree it's confusing when it's split across 2 switches. I'd have to rely on someone who speaks Juniper as to what the various paths mean.... "vcp-1" vs "internal-1/24" vs nothing?... Although- it looks like so far all the paths with loss seem to have "vcp-1" in them? ~Matthew On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Matthew, > > > > The switch throws out an error if I set the destination > port as an agg port. However I did all of their member ports individually > if that helps you. Personally I think AE bundles on different switches > should probably be ignored as data points to keep the troubleshooting > straightforward. > > > > jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...ce ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/11 > > vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-2/0/11 > > Hop Member PFE-Device Interface > > 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 > > 1 2 6 xe-2/0/11 > > > > {master:1} > > jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...ce ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/35 > > vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/35 > > Hop Member PFE-Device Interface > > 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 > > 1 1 3 internal-1/24 > > 2 0 1 xe-0/0/35 > > > > {master:1} > > jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/3 > > vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/3 > > Hop Member PFE-Device Interface > > 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 > > 1 2 6 vcp-1 > > 2 0 0 xe-0/0/3 > > > > {master:1} > > jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...e-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/13 > > vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/13 > > Hop Member PFE-Device Interface > > 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 > > 1 2 6 vcp-1 > > 2 0 0 xe-0/0/13 > > > > {master:1} > > jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/29 > > vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/29 > > Hop Member PFE-Device Interface > > 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 > > 1 1 3 internal-1/24 > > 2 0 1 xe-0/0/29 > > > > {master:1} > > jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/38 > > vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/38 > > Hop Member PFE-Device Interface > > 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 > > 1 1 3 internal-1/24 > > 2 0 1 xe-0/0/38 > > > > {master:1} > > jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/15 > > vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-2/0/15 > > Hop Member PFE-Device Interface > > 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 > > 1 2 6 xe-2/0/15 >

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Jeremy Lumby

Matthew, The switch throws out an error if I set the destination port as an agg port. However I did all of their member ports individually if that helps you. Personally I think AE bundles on different switches should probably be ignored as data points to keep the troubleshooting straightforward. jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...ce ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/11 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-2/0/11 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 2 6 xe-2/0/11 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...ce ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/35 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/35 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 1 3 internal-1/24 2 0 1 xe-0/0/35 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/3 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/3 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 2 6 vcp-1 2 0 0 xe-0/0/3 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...e-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/13 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/13 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 2 6 vcp-1 2 0 0 xe-0/0/13 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/29 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/29 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 1 3 internal-1/24 2 0 1 xe-0/0/29 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/38 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/38 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 1 3 internal-1/24 2 0 1 xe-0/0/38 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/15 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-2/0/15 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 2 6 xe-2/0/15 From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Matthew Beckwell Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 1:17 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Does the show virtual-chassis vc-path command work for LAG bundles? Specifically-- I know I'm also getting loss to Hurricane (ae6), and not to CNS (ae5). I'd be curious to see these: show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface ae5 show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface ae6 Additionally, I know I'm not getting loss to University of Wisconsin (xe-2/0/11) or Compudyne (xe-0/0/35), so this might be interesting as well. show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/11 show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/35 The pattern I'm seeing so far is loss on the first half of the 4500 from the 4200. ~Matthew On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: Here is the switch output: {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...ce ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/11 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-2/0/11 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 2 6 xe-2/0/11 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...ce ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/14 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/14 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 2 6 vcp-1 2 0 0 xe-0/0/14 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/11 destination-interface xe-0/0/8 vc-path from ge-1/0/11 to xe-0/0/8 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/11 1 2 6 vcp-1 2 0 0 xe-0/0/8 To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Matthew Beckwell

Does the show virtual-chassis vc-path command work for LAG bundles? Specifically-- I know I'm also getting loss to Hurricane (ae6), and not to CNS (ae5). I'd be curious to see these: show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface ae5 show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface ae6 Additionally, I know I'm not getting loss to University of Wisconsin (xe-2/0/11) or Compudyne (xe-0/0/35), so this might be interesting as well. show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/11 show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/35 The pattern I'm seeing so far is loss on the first half of the 4500 from the 4200. ~Matthew On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Here is the switch output: > > > > {master:1} > > jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...ce ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/11 > > vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-2/0/11 > > Hop Member PFE-Device Interface > > 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 > > 1 2 6 xe-2/0/11 > > > > {master:1} > > jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...ce ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/14 > > vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/14 > > Hop Member PFE-Device Interface > > 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 > > 1 2 6 vcp-1 > > 2 0 0 xe-0/0/14 > > > > {master:1} > > jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/11 destination-interface xe-0/0/8 > > vc-path from ge-1/0/11 to xe-0/0/8 > > Hop Member PFE-Device Interface > > 0 1 4 ge-1/0/11 > > 1 2 6 vcp-1 > > 2 0 0 xe-0/0/8 > > >

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:27:38AM -0500, Levi Pederson wrote: > I was unaware of the 5200. That sounds like a great solution depending > interconnect solutions etc. No mention of Junipers newish multi-Tbps switches? QFX10002-72Q is even targeted to IXPs. $200k a pop might be a bit much right now though. >> RE: graphing VCP throughput I've found some SLAX scripts, but they mention it puts the load real high on the switch for exporting the data they way they do it. I previously gave some online 'monitor int' stats showing traffic throughput in the mbps on the VCP links on the FPC1. I don't think throughput is an issue on the VCP backplane. Just adding up the traffic on the LG graph in my head quickly for anything on FPC1, I get maybe 600-700Mbps unidirectional traffic. I'd expect more along the lines of a bad cable or bad port. Or it could be something along the lines of going from the 64bps on the 4550 down to the 32gbps port on the 4200, and we could think about ditching the 4200. We could try to transition some members onto the 4550. But that requires new copper SFPs. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Levi Pederson

All, I was unaware of the 5200. That sounds like a great solution depending interconnect solutions etc. Thank you, *Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 20, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Levi Pederson <levipederson@MANKATONETWORKS. > NET> wrote: > > > Agreed to a point. But the back plane is several Terrabits. Possibly > alleviating the current situation. A pair would be nice, but since the > chassis' can have up to four power supplies and multiple PFEs we'd be > redundant to the port as we are currently. Chaining devices still > continues to provide enigmatic problems and solutions. Where a chassis > would be a better solution all round, including providing the possibility > for 40/100 Gig connections, especially to the Content providers. > > Kinda - but each slot on a 9200 has a 240gbps full duplex connection to > the backplane. That’s 2 100g ports per slot non-oversub’d, leaving you a > handful of 100g ports for alot of space + power. > > For the 32 port 10g cards, it leaves those oversub’d, and that’s where > you’d likely see the traffic (10g ports -> higher bandwidth ports being > used by content providers). > > Not to mention the space/power vs a couple 1RU boxes that have a scalable > fabric by adding more 40/100g connections to the mix for the fabric. (i.e.: > QFX5200 can have 32 100g ports in 1RU) *or* something like the Arista where > you have 3.something tbps for each slot, and the capability for 36 100g > ports in 1 slot (vs 2). > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com >

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Jeremy Lumby

Here is the switch output: {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...ce ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/11 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-2/0/11 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 2 6 xe-2/0/11 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...ce ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/14 vc-path from ge-1/0/15 to xe-0/0/14 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/15 1 2 6 vcp-1 2 0 0 xe-0/0/14 {master:1} jlumby@MICE-SW1> ...-interface ge-1/0/11 destination-interface xe-0/0/8 vc-path from ge-1/0/11 to xe-0/0/8 Hop Member PFE-Device Interface 0 1 4 ge-1/0/11 1 2 6 vcp-1 2 0 0 xe-0/0/8 From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Matthew Beckwell Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 11:15 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants I think graphing the VC links is a fantastic idea, if we can figure out how to do that. Do we know what JunOS they're running? I think our combined Cacti powers are strong enough to make this happen :) Couple of things I'm thinking of: -Loss is fairly low low and fairly consistent...(e.g. not time of day sensitive...I think Jeremy confirmed this). Also, I don't see a latency spike like you might see with saturation...it feels more like clock slips. (Maybe backplane stuff acts/feels different, I don't know.) -As jay mentioned, a good majority of traffic is CDN -> Eyeball. But I it doesn't seem like there would be a whole lot of CDN traffic leaving the 4200 that would generate enough traffic to cause stack congestion. (We only see loss in one direction). But...that's something we can probably rule out easy enough. For additional data...I'd be curious to see the output of the various "show virtual-chassis" commands Andrew suggested: show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/14 show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/11 ~Matthew On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: Are we graphing the VC links? SNMP support for that came in 14.something, otherwise, there is a SLAX script that can put values in the util mib: https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB27711&actp=search https://github.com/dgarros/juniper-ex-vcp-to-mib/blob/master/ex-vcp-to-mib.… I know that the interfaces themselves are clean, as Doug showed us, but that doesn’t rule out microbursts that are maxing them out. To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Matthew Beckwell

I think graphing the VC links is a fantastic idea, if we can figure out how to do that. Do we know what JunOS they're running? I think our combined Cacti powers are strong enough to make this happen :) Couple of things I'm thinking of: -Loss is fairly low low and fairly consistent...(e.g. not time of day sensitive...I think Jeremy confirmed this). Also, I don't see a latency spike like you might see with saturation...it feels more like clock slips. (Maybe backplane stuff acts/feels different, I don't know.) -As jay mentioned, a good majority of traffic is CDN -> Eyeball. But I it doesn't seem like there would be a whole lot of CDN traffic leaving the 4200 that would generate enough traffic to cause stack congestion. (We only see loss in one direction). But...that's something we can probably rule out easy enough. For additional data...I'd be curious to see the output of the various "show virtual-chassis" commands Andrew suggested: show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/14 show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/11 ~Matthew On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Are we graphing the VC links? > > SNMP support for that came in 14.something, otherwise, there is a SLAX > script that can put values in the util mib: > https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id= > KB27711&actp=search > https://github.com/dgarros/juniper-ex-vcp-to-mib/blob/master > /ex-vcp-to-mib.slax > > I know that the interfaces themselves are clean, as Doug showed us, but > that doesn’t rule out microbursts that are maxing them out. >

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Andrew Hoyos

On Sep 20, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Levi Pederson <levipederson(a)MANKATONETWORKS.NET> wrote: > Agreed to a point. But the back plane is several Terrabits. Possibly alleviating the current situation. A pair would be nice, but since the chassis' can have up to four power supplies and multiple PFEs we'd be redundant to the port as we are currently. Chaining devices still continues to provide enigmatic problems and solutions. Where a chassis would be a better solution all round, including providing the possibility for 40/100 Gig connections, especially to the Content providers. Kinda - but each slot on a 9200 has a 240gbps full duplex connection to the backplane. That’s 2 100g ports per slot non-oversub’d, leaving you a handful of 100g ports for alot of space + power. For the 32 port 10g cards, it leaves those oversub’d, and that’s where you’d likely see the traffic (10g ports -> higher bandwidth ports being used by content providers). Not to mention the space/power vs a couple 1RU boxes that have a scalable fabric by adding more 40/100g connections to the mix for the fabric. (i.e.: QFX5200 can have 32 100g ports in 1RU) *or* something like the Arista where you have 3.something tbps for each slot, and the capability for 36 100g ports in 1 slot (vs 2). -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Mike Horwath

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:29:46AM -0500, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > > On Sep 20, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)GEEKS.ORG> wrote: > > Cost per port is high compared to running with 4500/45550 setup and > > can stack 10 deep as it is. > > I don???t know if I necessarily agree here either. The VC will > quickly become a bottleneck if not already (32gb unidirectional > traffic). Dump the 4200 and stack via 128Gbe VC cables (2 of them). > Also, no support for 40/100g. Lies. EX4550-EM-2QSFP - expansion with 2 40Gbe QSFP+ No 100Gbe though :( > If money is being spent, something like an Arista 7504 or Juniper > QFX 5100/5200???s would make more sense here and allow for some > growth not entirely based on "more 10g ports". Doug has Arista running already (for a couple years now I think). He hasn't complained about them. I see Arista all over the place as well. Price per port is very reasonable. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Chase Rydberg

I can attest to Edge-Core. We've used them heavily, their support is top notch as I always have someone to reach out to in an instant if there's an issue. They might be a small operation in the US but there's an advantage to that (e.g. no layers to go through for support). Funny, I was just going to recommend them as an option as they have very reasonably priced 10G/40G hardware. If anyone wants a contact (both from Edge-Core and a distributor), let me know. They're worth consideration from my prospective. Chase Rydberg *North Star Fiber* On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> wrote: > I'm starting to think that the new OEM switches are worth a look. > Especially because we don't need a complex feature set. > > Mellanox > EdgeCore > etc. > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Sep 20, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)GEEKS.ORG> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:49:48AM -0500, Levi Pederson wrote: >> > >> >> A full chassis 8200 and 9200 would be a solid upgrade for all >> >> pertinent points. >> > >> > I don't agree. >> >> Also don’t agree with the 8200/9200. Most line cards on the 8200 and 9200 >> are oversub’d anyway, and the space/ports ratio isn’t great. >> >> > Cost per port is high compared to running with 4500/45550 setup and >> > can stack 10 deep as it is. >> >> I don’t know if I necessarily agree here either. The VC will quickly >> become a bottleneck if not already (32gb unidirectional traffic). >> Also, no support for 40/100g. >> >> If money is being spent, something like an Arista 7504 or Juniper QFX >> 5100/5200’s would make more sense here and allow for some growth not >> entirely based on "more 10g ports". >> >> -- >> Andrew Hoyos >> hoyosa(a)gmail.com >> > > > > -- > 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. 20, 2016

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

by Levi Pederson

All, Agreed to a point. But the back plane is several Terrabits. Possibly alleviating the current situation. A pair would be nice, but since the chassis' can have up to four power supplies and multiple PFEs we'd be redundant to the port as we are currently. Chaining devices still continues to provide enigmatic problems and solutions. Where a chassis would be a better solution all round, including providing the possibility for 40/100 Gig connections, especially to the Content providers. Chassis architecture can provide some degree of assistance in the current meta and distribution, the main point I would make is the chassis provides a flexible future. I do agree, a full suite of EX4550's with the 128Gig vpc connections would be a solution to our current dilemmas. Thank you, *Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)geeks.org> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:49:48AM -0500, Levi Pederson wrote: > > > A full chassis 8200 and 9200 would be a solid upgrade for all > > pertinent points. > > I don't agree. > > Cost per port is high compared to running with 4500/45550 setup and > can stack 10 deep as it is. > > Get another pair of 4500/4550 (as it is now) and transition the > current people off of the 4200 onto the ports there. This will make it > so that the stack is 100% 10Gbe with VC ports creating the mesh. > > Also, 8200/9200 won't fit in the current space given to the endeavor > today. And you'd want a pair, right? > > 4500 -> 4550 -> 4550 -> 4500 (loop back to 4500) for the rings. > > -- > Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG >

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Jason Hanke

I'm starting to think that the new OEM switches are worth a look. Especially because we don't need a complex feature set. Mellanox EdgeCore etc. On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sep 20, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)GEEKS.ORG> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:49:48AM -0500, Levi Pederson wrote: > > > >> A full chassis 8200 and 9200 would be a solid upgrade for all > >> pertinent points. > > > > I don't agree. > > Also don’t agree with the 8200/9200. Most line cards on the 8200 and 9200 > are oversub’d anyway, and the space/ports ratio isn’t great. > > > Cost per port is high compared to running with 4500/45550 setup and > > can stack 10 deep as it is. > > I don’t know if I necessarily agree here either. The VC will quickly > become a bottleneck if not already (32gb unidirectional traffic). > Also, no support for 40/100g. > > If money is being spent, something like an Arista 7504 or Juniper QFX > 5100/5200’s would make more sense here and allow for some growth not > entirely based on "more 10g ports". > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com > -- 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. 20, 2016

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

by Andrew Hoyos

> On Sep 20, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)GEEKS.ORG> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:49:48AM -0500, Levi Pederson wrote: > >> A full chassis 8200 and 9200 would be a solid upgrade for all >> pertinent points. > > I don't agree. Also don’t agree with the 8200/9200. Most line cards on the 8200 and 9200 are oversub’d anyway, and the space/ports ratio isn’t great. > Cost per port is high compared to running with 4500/45550 setup and > can stack 10 deep as it is. I don’t know if I necessarily agree here either. The VC will quickly become a bottleneck if not already (32gb unidirectional traffic). Also, no support for 40/100g. If money is being spent, something like an Arista 7504 or Juniper QFX 5100/5200’s would make more sense here and allow for some growth not entirely based on "more 10g ports". -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Mike Horwath

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:49:48AM -0500, Levi Pederson wrote: > A full chassis 8200 and 9200 would be a solid upgrade for all > pertinent points. I don't agree. Cost per port is high compared to running with 4500/45550 setup and can stack 10 deep as it is. Get another pair of 4500/4550 (as it is now) and transition the current people off of the 4200 onto the ports there. This will make it so that the stack is 100% 10Gbe with VC ports creating the mesh. Also, 8200/9200 won't fit in the current space given to the endeavor today. And you'd want a pair, right? 4500 -> 4550 -> 4550 -> 4500 (loop back to 4500) for the rings. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 20, 2016

Re: Non-Profit Status

by Richard Laager

On 09/20/2016 10:09 AM, Reid Fishler wrote: > This will be handed off with the new board seat as well. The new board member is going to need the documentation in question. -- Richard

Sept. 20, 2016

Re: Non-Profit Status

by Mike Horwath

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:00:46AM -0500, Richard Laager wrote: > I've so far avoided commenting publicly, but enough is enough. We need > to move this along. This is hard and done via volunterring. Public is okay by me! -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 20, 2016

Re: Non-Profit Status

by Reid Fishler

Shaun has been managing this while dealing with his work, and being deployed. This will be handed off with the new board seat as well. Reid On Sep 20, 2016 6:00 PM, "Richard Laager" <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > I'd like to request the board provide an actual update on the non-profit > status, preferably here before the meeting. > > I've been mailing off-list regularly since the last UG, and the answer > seems to be that: > > 1) We need to get some form to someone (lawyers or IRS?). > > 2) This form may need some financial details. > > 3) The board member responsible for this is busy and will do this "next > week". > > It's been "next week" every time. > > Another member tells me off-list that they've been doing the same thing, > for the same amount of time, and are getting the same answer. > > I've so far avoided commenting publicly, but enough is enough. We need > to move this along. > > -- > Richard > >

Sept. 20, 2016

Re: Non-Profit Status

by Shaun Carlson

That's fair Richard. It's on me to get the documentation to you and the other member and I will do so in short order. I have been focused on some other things, personally and professionally, and have not made this my priority. I will provide an update NLT Friday of this week. s *Shaun Carlson*Director of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > I'd like to request the board provide an actual update on the non-profit > status, preferably here before the meeting. > > I've been mailing off-list regularly since the last UG, and the answer > seems to be that: > > 1) We need to get some form to someone (lawyers or IRS?). > > 2) This form may need some financial details. > > 3) The board member responsible for this is busy and will do this "next > week". > > It's been "next week" every time. > > Another member tells me off-list that they've been doing the same thing, > for the same amount of time, and are getting the same answer. > > I've so far avoided commenting publicly, but enough is enough. We need > to move this along. > > -- > Richard >

Sept. 20, 2016

Non-Profit Status

by Richard Laager

I'd like to request the board provide an actual update on the non-profit status, preferably here before the meeting. I've been mailing off-list regularly since the last UG, and the answer seems to be that: 1) We need to get some form to someone (lawyers or IRS?). 2) This form may need some financial details. 3) The board member responsible for this is busy and will do this "next week". It's been "next week" every time. Another member tells me off-list that they've been doing the same thing, for the same amount of time, and are getting the same answer. I've so far avoided commenting publicly, but enough is enough. We need to move this along. -- Richard

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Levi Pederson

All, A full chassis 8200 and 9200 would be a solid upgrade for all pertinent points. Thank you, *Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > On a partially related note, I think we should keep all of these little > technical details in the back of our mind for when we have nonprofit > status, and can collect the money for a larger switching platform. I think > they can really influence the scalability, redundancy, as well as ease of > monitoring/troubleshooting. > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of > Andrew Hoyos > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 9:31 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > Option #1 seems to be the most logical (with a 2x10g LAG, split between > the two 4500/4550 switches even MCLAG style). That removes that traffic > from the VC paths and simplifies that side of the house. > > I’d even pony up this EX-UM-2XFP I have sitting here unused. > > Are we graphing the VC links? > > SNMP support for that came in 14.something, otherwise, there is a SLAX > script that can put values in the util mib: > https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content& > id=KB27711&actp=search > https://github.com/dgarros/juniper-ex-vcp-to-mib/blob/ > master/ex-vcp-to-mib.slax > > I know that the interfaces themselves are clean, as Doug showed us, but > that doesn’t rule out microbursts that are maxing them out. > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com > > > > > On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> > wrote: > > > > We've had pretty significant growth (20+ Gig) over the last year or so. > > > > <graph_image.png> > > > > Most of this traffic is CDN->Eyeball. The CDN networks are taking > increasingly larger connections creating a large delta between the largest > and smallest connections on the switch. A 4x10G LAG can put a pretty big > dent in the VC links on its own. > > > > I have two ideas- > > > > 1) Reconfigure the 1G switch to have a LAG group back into the main > switch. > > 2) Offer community strings letting the CDN networks send traffic to the > eyeballs without traversing the VC links. > > > > Jay > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > wrote: > > No, that isn't the case, it is a dual ring, so there are paths > > > > FPC0->FPC1->FPC2->FPC0 > > FPC0->FPC2->FPC1->FPC0 > > > > There are ways to tell which is the "active" path through the rings, as I > > stated before, I think one path is mainly "active" and one is mainly > passive. > > I don't know if just disabling one VCP port will work. > > > > But I guess there is a KB on it. > > https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content& > id=KB17821&actp=search > > > > So, we could failover the active path to the other ring. > > Or set one of the VCP ports to disable. > > > > Should we do a 'virtual-chassis active path failover' event sometime? > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:07:00AM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > > So if I understand correctly from your "show virtual-chassis > active-topology" below, all traffic from the 4500 to the 4200 is going via > the 4550? And if that is the case, is there an easy way in the software > that we could tell it to have return traffic from the 4200 to the 4500 also > go via the 4550? This would allow us to easily test to see if it is the > specific cable that runs from the 4200 to the 4500. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf > Of Doug McIntyre > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:24 AM > > > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > > > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:01:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > > > This leads me to wonder if there is possibly an issue with the > stacking modules, or they are being saturated. > > > ... > > > > > > Your understanding of the vc port speeds is correct. > > > > > > The VCP ports are built into the EX4200 and EX4500. The EX4550 has > addon > > > cards that do those functions. We can devote a port to VCP > functionality > > > instead, but it'll be a 10G limit instead of 32G > > > > > > The VCP ports are 32Gbps single direction in each port. So in the > dual-ring > > > the cables have are 32Gbps in each direction. > > > > > > You can see which ports are connected to what. (FPC0 is the EX4500, > > > FPC1 is the EX4200, FPC2 is the EX4550). > > > > > > show virtual-chassis active-topology > > > fpc0: > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------- > > > Destination ID Next-hop > > > > > > 1 2(vcp-1.32768) 1(vcp-0.32768) > > > > > > 2 2(vcp-1.32768) > > > > > > fpc1: > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------- > > > Destination ID Next-hop > > > > > > 0 0(vcp-0.32768) 2(vcp-1.32768) > > > > > > 2 2(vcp-1.32768) > > > > > > fpc2: > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------- > > > Destination ID Next-hop > > > > > > 0 0(vcp-255/2/0.32768) > > > > > > 1 1(vcp-255/2/3.32768) > > > > > > > > > > > > You can monitor each of the VCP ports on each of the members. I don't > think > > > we are close to saturation. > > > > > > request session member 1 > > > (ie. rlogin to the EX4200 switch). > > > > > > monitor int vcp-0 > > > Interface: vcp-0, Enabled, Link is Up > > > Encapsulation: Virtual-Chassis-Interface, Speed: 32000mbps > > > Traffic statistics: > Current delta > > > Input bytes: 25685118521 > [12138] > > > Output bytes: 27856843010 > [13204] > > > Input packets: 33377693 > [16] > > > Output packets: 33371644 > [16] > > > Error statistics: > > > Input errors: 0 > [0] > > > Input drops: 0 > [0] > > > Input framing errors: 0 > [0] > > > Carrier transitions: 0 > [0] > > > Output errors: 0 > [0] > > > Output drops: 0 > [0] > > > > > > > > > vcp-1 on FPC1 is much less usage. Still zero error stats. All switches > > > show zero error stats on any of the respective VCP port status. > > > > > > I suppose further troubleshooting could be to replace the VCP cables > > > one by one coming out of the EX4200. > > > > > > Its too bad that we've got the quad fiber expansion in the EX4200, > > > another test could be to put the dual 10G expansion in it, and make > > > those VCP ports and make the VC fabric over those ports instead. But > > > we've got 3 member ports lit on that quad 1G fiber. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > > > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > > > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > > > > -- > > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > > > > > > > > -- > > 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. 20, 2016

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

by Jeremy Lumby

On a partially related note, I think we should keep all of these little technical details in the back of our mind for when we have nonprofit status, and can collect the money for a larger switching platform. I think they can really influence the scalability, redundancy, as well as ease of monitoring/troubleshooting. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 9:31 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Option #1 seems to be the most logical (with a 2x10g LAG, split between the two 4500/4550 switches even MCLAG style). That removes that traffic from the VC paths and simplifies that side of the house. I’d even pony up this EX-UM-2XFP I have sitting here unused. Are we graphing the VC links? SNMP support for that came in 14.something, otherwise, there is a SLAX script that can put values in the util mib: https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB27711&actp=search https://github.com/dgarros/juniper-ex-vcp-to-mib/blob/master/ex-vcp-to-mib.… I know that the interfaces themselves are clean, as Doug showed us, but that doesn’t rule out microbursts that are maxing them out. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: > > We've had pretty significant growth (20+ Gig) over the last year or so. > > <graph_image.png> > > Most of this traffic is CDN->Eyeball. The CDN networks are taking increasingly larger connections creating a large delta between the largest and smallest connections on the switch. A 4x10G LAG can put a pretty big dent in the VC links on its own. > > I have two ideas- > > 1) Reconfigure the 1G switch to have a LAG group back into the main switch. > 2) Offer community strings letting the CDN networks send traffic to the eyeballs without traversing the VC links. > > Jay > > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > No, that isn't the case, it is a dual ring, so there are paths > > FPC0->FPC1->FPC2->FPC0 > FPC0->FPC2->FPC1->FPC0 > > There are ways to tell which is the "active" path through the rings, as I > stated before, I think one path is mainly "active" and one is mainly passive. > I don't know if just disabling one VCP port will work. > > But I guess there is a KB on it. > https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB17821&actp=search > > So, we could failover the active path to the other ring. > Or set one of the VCP ports to disable. > > Should we do a 'virtual-chassis active path failover' event sometime? > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:07:00AM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > So if I understand correctly from your "show virtual-chassis active-topology" below, all traffic from the 4500 to the 4200 is going via the 4550? And if that is the case, is there an easy way in the software that we could tell it to have return traffic from the 4200 to the 4500 also go via the 4550? This would allow us to easily test to see if it is the specific cable that runs from the 4200 to the 4500. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre > > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:24 AM > > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants > > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:01:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > > This leads me to wonder if there is possibly an issue with the stacking modules, or they are being saturated. > > ... > > > > Your understanding of the vc port speeds is correct. > > > > The VCP ports are built into the EX4200 and EX4500. The EX4550 has addon > > cards that do those functions. We can devote a port to VCP functionality > > instead, but it'll be a 10G limit instead of 32G > > > > The VCP ports are 32Gbps single direction in each port. So in the dual-ring > > the cables have are 32Gbps in each direction. > > > > You can see which ports are connected to what. (FPC0 is the EX4500, > > FPC1 is the EX4200, FPC2 is the EX4550). > > > > show virtual-chassis active-topology > > fpc0: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Destination ID Next-hop > > > > 1 2(vcp-1.32768) 1(vcp-0.32768) > > > > 2 2(vcp-1.32768) > > > > fpc1: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Destination ID Next-hop > > > > 0 0(vcp-0.32768) 2(vcp-1.32768) > > > > 2 2(vcp-1.32768) > > > > fpc2: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Destination ID Next-hop > > > > 0 0(vcp-255/2/0.32768) > > > > 1 1(vcp-255/2/3.32768) > > > > > > > > You can monitor each of the VCP ports on each of the members. I don't think > > we are close to saturation. > > > > request session member 1 > > (ie. rlogin to the EX4200 switch). > > > > monitor int vcp-0 > > Interface: vcp-0, Enabled, Link is Up > > Encapsulation: Virtual-Chassis-Interface, Speed: 32000mbps > > Traffic statistics: Current delta > > Input bytes: 25685118521 [12138] > > Output bytes: 27856843010 [13204] > > Input packets: 33377693 [16] > > Output packets: 33371644 [16] > > Error statistics: > > Input errors: 0 [0] > > Input drops: 0 [0] > > Input framing errors: 0 [0] > > Carrier transitions: 0 [0] > > Output errors: 0 [0] > > Output drops: 0 [0] > > > > > > vcp-1 on FPC1 is much less usage. Still zero error stats. All switches > > show zero error stats on any of the respective VCP port status. > > > > I suppose further troubleshooting could be to replace the VCP cables > > one by one coming out of the EX4200. > > > > Its too bad that we've got the quad fiber expansion in the EX4200, > > another test could be to put the dual 10G expansion in it, and make > > those VCP ports and make the VC fabric over those ports instead. But > > we've got 3 member ports lit on that quad 1G fiber. > > > > > > > > -- > > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > > > > -- > 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. 20, 2016

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

by Andrew Hoyos

Option #1 seems to be the most logical (with a 2x10g LAG, split between the two 4500/4550 switches even MCLAG style). That removes that traffic from the VC paths and simplifies that side of the house. I’d even pony up this EX-UM-2XFP I have sitting here unused. Are we graphing the VC links? SNMP support for that came in 14.something, otherwise, there is a SLAX script that can put values in the util mib: https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB27711&actp=search https://github.com/dgarros/juniper-ex-vcp-to-mib/blob/master/ex-vcp-to-mib.… I know that the interfaces themselves are clean, as Doug showed us, but that doesn’t rule out microbursts that are maxing them out. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: > > We've had pretty significant growth (20+ Gig) over the last year or so. > > <graph_image.png> > > Most of this traffic is CDN->Eyeball. The CDN networks are taking increasingly larger connections creating a large delta between the largest and smallest connections on the switch. A 4x10G LAG can put a pretty big dent in the VC links on its own. > > I have two ideas- > > 1) Reconfigure the 1G switch to have a LAG group back into the main switch. > 2) Offer community strings letting the CDN networks send traffic to the eyeballs without traversing the VC links. > > Jay > > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > No, that isn't the case, it is a dual ring, so there are paths > > FPC0->FPC1->FPC2->FPC0 > FPC0->FPC2->FPC1->FPC0 > > There are ways to tell which is the "active" path through the rings, as I > stated before, I think one path is mainly "active" and one is mainly passive. > I don't know if just disabling one VCP port will work. > > But I guess there is a KB on it. > https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB17821&actp=search > > So, we could failover the active path to the other ring. > Or set one of the VCP ports to disable. > > Should we do a 'virtual-chassis active path failover' event sometime? > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:07:00AM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > So if I understand correctly from your "show virtual-chassis active-topology" below, all traffic from the 4500 to the 4200 is going via the 4550? And if that is the case, is there an easy way in the software that we could tell it to have return traffic from the 4200 to the 4500 also go via the 4550? This would allow us to easily test to see if it is the specific cable that runs from the 4200 to the 4500. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre > > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:24 AM > > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants > > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:01:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > > This leads me to wonder if there is possibly an issue with the stacking modules, or they are being saturated. > > ... > > > > Your understanding of the vc port speeds is correct. > > > > The VCP ports are built into the EX4200 and EX4500. The EX4550 has addon > > cards that do those functions. We can devote a port to VCP functionality > > instead, but it'll be a 10G limit instead of 32G > > > > The VCP ports are 32Gbps single direction in each port. So in the dual-ring > > the cables have are 32Gbps in each direction. > > > > You can see which ports are connected to what. (FPC0 is the EX4500, > > FPC1 is the EX4200, FPC2 is the EX4550). > > > > show virtual-chassis active-topology > > fpc0: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Destination ID Next-hop > > > > 1 2(vcp-1.32768) 1(vcp-0.32768) > > > > 2 2(vcp-1.32768) > > > > fpc1: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Destination ID Next-hop > > > > 0 0(vcp-0.32768) 2(vcp-1.32768) > > > > 2 2(vcp-1.32768) > > > > fpc2: > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Destination ID Next-hop > > > > 0 0(vcp-255/2/0.32768) > > > > 1 1(vcp-255/2/3.32768) > > > > > > > > You can monitor each of the VCP ports on each of the members. I don't think > > we are close to saturation. > > > > request session member 1 > > (ie. rlogin to the EX4200 switch). > > > > monitor int vcp-0 > > Interface: vcp-0, Enabled, Link is Up > > Encapsulation: Virtual-Chassis-Interface, Speed: 32000mbps > > Traffic statistics: Current delta > > Input bytes: 25685118521 [12138] > > Output bytes: 27856843010 [13204] > > Input packets: 33377693 [16] > > Output packets: 33371644 [16] > > Error statistics: > > Input errors: 0 [0] > > Input drops: 0 [0] > > Input framing errors: 0 [0] > > Carrier transitions: 0 [0] > > Output errors: 0 [0] > > Output drops: 0 [0] > > > > > > vcp-1 on FPC1 is much less usage. Still zero error stats. All switches > > show zero error stats on any of the respective VCP port status. > > > > I suppose further troubleshooting could be to replace the VCP cables > > one by one coming out of the EX4200. > > > > Its too bad that we've got the quad fiber expansion in the EX4200, > > another test could be to put the dual 10G expansion in it, and make > > those VCP ports and make the VC fabric over those ports instead. But > > we've got 3 member ports lit on that quad 1G fiber. > > > > > > > > -- > > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > > > > -- > 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. 20, 2016

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

by Richard Laager

On 09/20/2016 09:21 AM, Jason Hanke wrote: > Offer community strings letting the CDN networks send traffic to the > eyeballs without traversing the VC links. I'm not quite following this one. What did you have in mind? -- Richard

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Jason Hanke

We've had pretty significant growth (20+ Gig) over the last year or so. [image: Inline image 5] Most of this traffic is CDN->Eyeball. The CDN networks are taking increasingly larger connections creating a large delta between the largest and smallest connections on the switch. A 4x10G LAG can put a pretty big dent in the VC links on its own. I have two ideas- 1) Reconfigure the 1G switch to have a LAG group back into the main switch. 2) Offer community strings letting the CDN networks send traffic to the eyeballs without traversing the VC links. Jay On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > No, that isn't the case, it is a dual ring, so there are paths > > FPC0->FPC1->FPC2->FPC0 > FPC0->FPC2->FPC1->FPC0 > > There are ways to tell which is the "active" path through the rings, as I > stated before, I think one path is mainly "active" and one is mainly > passive. > I don't know if just disabling one VCP port will work. > > But I guess there is a KB on it. > https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content& > id=KB17821&actp=search > > So, we could failover the active path to the other ring. > Or set one of the VCP ports to disable. > > Should we do a 'virtual-chassis active path failover' event sometime? > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:07:00AM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > So if I understand correctly from your "show virtual-chassis > active-topology" below, all traffic from the 4500 to the 4200 is going via > the 4550? And if that is the case, is there an easy way in the software > that we could tell it to have return traffic from the 4200 to the 4500 also > go via the 4550? This would allow us to easily test to see if it is the > specific cable that runs from the 4200 to the 4500. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of > Doug McIntyre > > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:24 AM > > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G > Participants > > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:01:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > > This leads me to wonder if there is possibly an issue with the > stacking modules, or they are being saturated. > > ... > > > > Your understanding of the vc port speeds is correct. > > > > The VCP ports are built into the EX4200 and EX4500. The EX4550 has addon > > cards that do those functions. We can devote a port to VCP functionality > > instead, but it'll be a 10G limit instead of 32G > > > > The VCP ports are 32Gbps single direction in each port. So in the > dual-ring > > the cables have are 32Gbps in each direction. > > > > You can see which ports are connected to what. (FPC0 is the EX4500, > > FPC1 is the EX4200, FPC2 is the EX4550). > > > > show virtual-chassis active-topology > > fpc0: > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------- > > Destination ID Next-hop > > > > 1 2(vcp-1.32768) 1(vcp-0.32768) > > > > 2 2(vcp-1.32768) > > > > fpc1: > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------- > > Destination ID Next-hop > > > > 0 0(vcp-0.32768) 2(vcp-1.32768) > > > > 2 2(vcp-1.32768) > > > > fpc2: > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------- > > Destination ID Next-hop > > > > 0 0(vcp-255/2/0.32768) > > > > 1 1(vcp-255/2/3.32768) > > > > > > > > You can monitor each of the VCP ports on each of the members. I don't > think > > we are close to saturation. > > > > request session member 1 > > (ie. rlogin to the EX4200 switch). > > > > monitor int vcp-0 > > Interface: vcp-0, Enabled, Link is Up > > Encapsulation: Virtual-Chassis-Interface, Speed: 32000mbps > > Traffic statistics: Current > delta > > Input bytes: 25685118521 > [12138] > > Output bytes: 27856843010 > [13204] > > Input packets: 33377693 > [16] > > Output packets: 33371644 > [16] > > Error statistics: > > Input errors: 0 > [0] > > Input drops: 0 > [0] > > Input framing errors: 0 > [0] > > Carrier transitions: 0 > [0] > > Output errors: 0 > [0] > > Output drops: 0 > [0] > > > > > > vcp-1 on FPC1 is much less usage. Still zero error stats. All switches > > show zero error stats on any of the respective VCP port status. > > > > I suppose further troubleshooting could be to replace the VCP cables > > one by one coming out of the EX4200. > > > > Its too bad that we've got the quad fiber expansion in the EX4200, > > another test could be to put the dual 10G expansion in it, and make > > those VCP ports and make the VC fabric over those ports instead. But > > we've got 3 member ports lit on that quad 1G fiber. > > > > > > > > -- > > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > -- 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. 20, 2016

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

by Andrew Hoyos

On Sep 20, 2016, at 8:29 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > > There are ways to tell which is the "active" path through the rings, as I > stated before, I think one path is mainly "active" and one is mainly passive. > I don't know if just disabling one VCP port will work. Let’s figure out of a common VCP port first. Like I said before, this ‘path’ is based on src/dst interfaces in the VC, and the selection algorithm is SPF based (but factors in actual PFE hops on each switch - internal to each switch is a PFE chip controlling a set of ports with a fabric between that is also used for VC - it’s not as simple as FPC0 -> FPC1 -> FPC2) What say: ‘show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-0/0/14’ (original issue of AITech to USInternet - loss evident) ‘show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface ge-1/0/11 destination-interface xe-0/0/8’ (MNVoip to Charter - loss evident) ‘show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface ge-1/0/15 destination-interface xe-2/0/11’ (AITech to UW Madison - no loss evident) If there is a common VCP port on the two paths where loss was evident, it’d probably be easier and less intrusive to disable that port during a maintenance window, test, then re-enable. IIRC that active path failover command is for *. 'request virtual-chassis vc-port member 1 set interface vcp-X disable' -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Sept. 20, 2016

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

by Doug McIntyre

No, that isn't the case, it is a dual ring, so there are paths FPC0->FPC1->FPC2->FPC0 FPC0->FPC2->FPC1->FPC0 There are ways to tell which is the "active" path through the rings, as I stated before, I think one path is mainly "active" and one is mainly passive. I don't know if just disabling one VCP port will work. But I guess there is a KB on it. https://kb.juniper.net/InfoCenter/index?page=content&id=KB17821&actp=search So, we could failover the active path to the other ring. Or set one of the VCP ports to disable. Should we do a 'virtual-chassis active path failover' event sometime? On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 08:07:00AM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > So if I understand correctly from your "show virtual-chassis active-topology" below, all traffic from the 4500 to the 4200 is going via the 4550? And if that is the case, is there an easy way in the software that we could tell it to have return traffic from the 4200 to the 4500 also go via the 4550? This would allow us to easily test to see if it is the specific cable that runs from the 4200 to the 4500. > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:24 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:01:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > This leads me to wonder if there is possibly an issue with the stacking modules, or they are being saturated. > ... > > Your understanding of the vc port speeds is correct. > > The VCP ports are built into the EX4200 and EX4500. The EX4550 has addon > cards that do those functions. We can devote a port to VCP functionality > instead, but it'll be a 10G limit instead of 32G > > The VCP ports are 32Gbps single direction in each port. So in the dual-ring > the cables have are 32Gbps in each direction. > > You can see which ports are connected to what. (FPC0 is the EX4500, > FPC1 is the EX4200, FPC2 is the EX4550). > > show virtual-chassis active-topology > fpc0: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Destination ID Next-hop > > 1 2(vcp-1.32768) 1(vcp-0.32768) > > 2 2(vcp-1.32768) > > fpc1: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Destination ID Next-hop > > 0 0(vcp-0.32768) 2(vcp-1.32768) > > 2 2(vcp-1.32768) > > fpc2: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Destination ID Next-hop > > 0 0(vcp-255/2/0.32768) > > 1 1(vcp-255/2/3.32768) > > > > You can monitor each of the VCP ports on each of the members. I don't think > we are close to saturation. > > request session member 1 > (ie. rlogin to the EX4200 switch). > > monitor int vcp-0 > Interface: vcp-0, Enabled, Link is Up > Encapsulation: Virtual-Chassis-Interface, Speed: 32000mbps > Traffic statistics: Current delta > Input bytes: 25685118521 [12138] > Output bytes: 27856843010 [13204] > Input packets: 33377693 [16] > Output packets: 33371644 [16] > Error statistics: > Input errors: 0 [0] > Input drops: 0 [0] > Input framing errors: 0 [0] > Carrier transitions: 0 [0] > Output errors: 0 [0] > Output drops: 0 [0] > > > vcp-1 on FPC1 is much less usage. Still zero error stats. All switches > show zero error stats on any of the respective VCP port status. > > I suppose further troubleshooting could be to replace the VCP cables > one by one coming out of the EX4200. > > Its too bad that we've got the quad fiber expansion in the EX4200, > another test could be to put the dual 10G expansion in it, and make > those VCP ports and make the VC fabric over those ports instead. But > we've got 3 member ports lit on that quad 1G fiber. > > > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Sept. 20, 2016