- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: MICE Fees Nay Fundraising

by Reid Fishler

As discussed at the meeting, just as soon as we have confirmation that everything is in on the 501 c6 registration (which should be very shortly) we can start to solicit donations. Reid On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: > > > Why overthink it? Why not just ask for donations and see what happens? > > > > On Nov 16, 2015, at 22:47, Justin Krejci <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM > <JKrejci(a)usinternet.com>> wrote: > > In an effort to not extend the UG discussion further on the "how to get > MICE some money" topic today, and as specifically directed by the board, I > am posting this idea to the mail list. > > > Given the suggestion of caution that MICE should use when discussing the > process of raising funds, I propose the traditional method various > associations use of voluntary/charitable donations. The "how much do you > feel you and the community benefits from the existence and success of > MICE?" approach. Then the little flyer cards with the check boxes next to > various suggested dollar amounts is what comes to mind. > > (hypothetical example) > [ ] - $100 / month > [ ] - $250 / month > [ ] - $500 / month > [ ] - $1000 / month > [ ] - $_____ / month > [ ] - $_____ / one-time > > > MICE could even make note of donor levels if we wanted to get fancy like > at all the trade shows: platinum sponsors, gold, silver, tin, plastic, etc. > This could be an opt-in choice for donating members if they want to get a > little sponsor reference to their website a la CentOS mirros ( > https://www.centos.org/download/mirrors/ > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.centos.org_downloa…> > ) > > Yes, there are logistical issues that would need to be worked out: someone > or something to generate payable invoices, the completion of MICE's > non-profit status, someone to receive/process payments to MICE, etc. Given > the collective knowledge and capabilities of all of the members involved, I > don't think any such hurdles are insurmountable. > > I believe some/many organizations would be willing to make or keep on > making financial contributions, I know US Internet fits this category. I > wonder how comfortable organizations that are against forced payment for > MICE membership would be to contribute voluntarily to MICE in such a > fashion. This would at least provide a way to start building some reliable > capital vs the ad hoc method of "hey we need to pay the lawyer, can > everyone pitch in?" method. I think it would be better to have the funds > when needed than to ask for the funds when needed. > > In any case, I hope to least get the ball rolling on the general topic of > funding MICE. > > Thoughts? Comments? Feedback? > > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

Nov. 17, 2015

Re: Member SLA's

by Nevin Lyne

On Monday, November 16, 2015 6:15pm, "Jamison Masters" <jamison(a)VERUSCORP.COM> said: > However, the SLA vendor would require management access to the IXP equipment to > support its SLA, and that is where my concern is. Uh maybe I am missing something but why would this "SLA vendor" have access to make changes to the Exchanges equipment if the SLA vendor is not hired by the Exchange itself? The infrastructure is not owned or operated by "Behemoth", and the Exchange is not beholden to some SLA that "Behemoth" and "SLA vendor" created between each other. "SLA vendor" would need to go through the existing people/steps involved/in place for adding a new person to the exchange, or moving someone between a GigE and a 10GE port for example. Random members of the Exchange can't make changes to the switches or bird now, why would this relationship above lead to some SLA vendor being any different? -- Nevin Lyne -- Founder & Director of Technology -- Arcustech, LLC. - arcustech.com -- Gippy's Internet Solutions, LLC. - enginehosting.com

Nov. 17, 2015

Member SLA's

by Jamison Masters

A discussion during the meeting today surrounded a third party maintenance organization, "the SLA vendor," that would accept payment from "Behemoth, Inc." to fulfill Behemoth's SLA (24x7 support, MTTR, etc...). It is established, and I agree that the SLA relationship occurs exclusively between Behemoth and the SLA vendor, and that Behemoth has no higher precedence on the exchange than anyone else. Behemoth is just another port on the switch. However, the SLA vendor would require management access to the IXP equipment to support its SLA, and that is where my concern is. If the SLA vendor is under contract to make Behemoth happy, they may choose to make configuration changes that prioritize their SLA agreement without consideration for the other members in the exchange. e.g., "What if I shut these other ports down to see if it fixes Behemoth's problem?" or, "We just brought on a new MICE member today. Maybe they screwed something up. I'll shut their session down just to see if it affected Behemoth..." We need to thoroughly trust the SLA vendor. What about rights and responsibilities? What penalties will the SLA vendor face if they mangle something for the sake of their contract with Behemoth, Inc., regardless if it nefarious or not? The meeting moved on to change management, an appropriate segue. Jamison Masters Partner / CIO VERUS Corporation 763-354-2204 jamison(a)veruscorp.com

Nov. 17, 2015

Re: MICE Fees Nay Fundraising

by Hannigan, Martin

Why overthink it? Why not just ask for donations and see what happens? On Nov 16, 2015, at 22:47, Justin Krejci <JKrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM<mailto:JKrejci@usinternet.com>> wrote: In an effort to not extend the UG discussion further on the "how to get MICE some money" topic today, and as specifically directed by the board, I am posting this idea to the mail list. Given the suggestion of caution that MICE should use when discussing the process of raising funds, I propose the traditional method various associations use of voluntary/charitable donations. The "how much do you feel you and the community benefits from the existence and success of MICE?" approach. Then the little flyer cards with the check boxes next to various suggested dollar amounts is what comes to mind. (hypothetical example) [ ] - $100 / month [ ] - $250 / month [ ] - $500 / month [ ] - $1000 / month [ ] - $_____ / month [ ] - $_____ / one-time MICE could even make note of donor levels if we wanted to get fancy like at all the trade shows: platinum sponsors, gold, silver, tin, plastic, etc. This could be an opt-in choice for donating members if they want to get a little sponsor reference to their website a la CentOS mirros (https://www.centos.org/download/mirrors/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.centos.org_downloa…>) Yes, there are logistical issues that would need to be worked out: someone or something to generate payable invoices, the completion of MICE's non-profit status, someone to receive/process payments to MICE, etc. Given the collective knowledge and capabilities of all of the members involved, I don't think any such hurdles are insurmountable. I believe some/many organizations would be willing to make or keep on making financial contributions, I know US Internet fits this category. I wonder how comfortable organizations that are against forced payment for MICE membership would be to contribute voluntarily to MICE in such a fashion. This would at least provide a way to start building some reliable capital vs the ad hoc method of "hey we need to pay the lawyer, can everyone pitch in?" method. I think it would be better to have the funds when needed than to ask for the funds when needed. In any case, I hope to least get the ball rolling on the general topic of funding MICE. Thoughts? Comments? Feedback? ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…>

Nov. 16, 2015

MICE Fees Nay Fundraising

by Justin Krejci

In an effort to not extend the UG discussion further on the "how to get MICE some money" topic today, and as specifically directed by the board, I am posting this idea to the mail list. Given the suggestion of caution that MICE should use when discussing the process of raising funds, I propose the traditional method various associations use of voluntary/charitable donations. The "how much do you feel you and the community benefits from the existence and success of MICE?" approach. Then the little flyer cards with the check boxes next to various suggested dollar amounts is what comes to mind. (hypothetical example) [ ] - $100 / month [ ] - $250 / month [ ] - $500 / month [ ] - $1000 / month [ ] - $_____ / month [ ] - $_____ / one-time MICE could even make note of donor levels if we wanted to get fancy like at all the trade shows: platinum sponsors, gold, silver, tin, plastic, etc. This could be an opt-in choice for donating members if they want to get a little sponsor reference to their website a la CentOS mirros (https://www.centos.org/download/mirrors/) Yes, there are logistical issues that would need to be worked out: someone or something to generate payable invoices, the completion of MICE's non-profit status, someone to receive/process payments to MICE, etc. Given the collective knowledge and capabilities of all of the members involved, I don't think any such hurdles are insurmountable. I believe some/many organizations would be willing to make or keep on making financial contributions, I know US Internet fits this category. I wonder how comfortable organizations that are against forced payment for MICE membership would be to contribute voluntarily to MICE in such a fashion. This would at least provide a way to start building some reliable capital vs the ad hoc method of "hey we need to pay the lawyer, can everyone pitch in?" method. I think it would be better to have the funds when needed than to ask for the funds when needed. In any case, I hope to least get the ball rolling on the general topic of funding MICE. Thoughts? Comments? Feedback?

Nov. 16, 2015

Re: Posting MICE Meeting Materials

by Adam White

"all your file transfer methods are belong to us" - SMTP Adam White Network Engineer Emergent Networks From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Justin Krejci Sent: Monday, November 16, 2015 11:06 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Posting MICE Meeting Materials I have observed other organizations successfully utilize their website for tracking and posting meeting agendas and meeting meetings. A full blown CMS with revisions/history or a simple flat list or table of URLs can work very well. I suggest something similar be considered for MICE either as a replacement of email or as complement to email. Having a central location makes it consistent and straight forward to retrieve any desired document, current or past. This becomes even more relevant to those that are more recently joining MICE who did not receive the previous emails and so have to dig scrape through mailing list archives if they wish to review and understand the history of MICE. I personally also like that it provides a subtle jab against SMTP from subjugating all of our file transfer methods. ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Nov. 16, 2015

MICE UG 18 - Minutes

by Shaun Carlson

Please see attached minutes; please let me know if there are any corrections. Thanks! s *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

Nov. 16, 2015

Webex Online

by Shaun Carlson

All, The Webex is online with the following info: *Where*: 511 Cafeteria, WebEx Online *Meeting number*: 195 549 476 *Password*: This meeting does not require a password. Alternate Audio Connection: 1-415-655-0001 *Access code*: 195 549 476 See you there! Thanks! s *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

Nov. 16, 2015

Posting MICE Meeting Materials

by Justin Krejci

I have observed other organizations successfully utilize their website for tracking and posting meeting agendas and meeting meetings. A full blown CMS with revisions/history or a simple flat list or table of URLs can work very well. I suggest something similar be considered for MICE either as a replacement of email or as complement to email. Having a central location makes it consistent and straight forward to retrieve any desired document, current or past. This becomes even more relevant to those that are more recently joining MICE who did not receive the previous emails and so have to dig scrape through mailing list archives if they wish to review and understand the history of MICE. I personally also like that it provides a subtle jab against SMTP from subjugating all of our file transfer methods.

Nov. 16, 2015

MICE UG 17 Minutes - FOR REVIEW

by Shaun Carlson

Please let me know if there are any corrections that need to be noted for the approval of the minutes. Thanks! s *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

Nov. 16, 2015

MICE UG 18 Agenda and Webex Information

by Shaun Carlson

All, My apologies as I'm sending this again. It appears this didn't go out last week as I had thought. Please let me know if there are any agenda additions and I'll make the change prior to the meeting. Webex info is as follows: *Where*: 511 Cafeteria, WebEx Online *Meeting number*: 195 549 476 *Password*: This meeting does not require a password. Alternate Audio Connection: 1-415-655-0001 *Access code*: 195 549 476 Thanks and see you all at 1 pm today! s *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

Nov. 16, 2015

Agenda Request for Monday's meeting

by Shaun Carlson

All, Just a quick request for any agenda items for Monday. I plan to send out the "final" agenda on Thursday. In addition, are there any requests for remote attendance? If so, I'll set the Webex up again. Thanks! s Shaun Carlson Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346.8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

Nov. 10, 2015

Facebook

by Brandon Mickelson

Anyone see any facebook issues? Appears to me the facebook name servers are going overseas. Just started looking. Brandon Mickelson Network Services Coordinator Halstad Telephone Company RRV Network bmick(a)rrv.net 218-456-2125 x227 1-800-457-2125

Oct. 27, 2015

Please welcome Hoyos Consulting to MICE

by Jason Hanke

Name: Hoyos Consulting Port: xe-0/2/3 (Main Switch) Speed: 10G ASN: 53597 IPv4: 206.108.255.65/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:d15d::1/64 Contact: noc(a)hoyosconsulting.com Route server and website please! Hoyos will be donating additional 10G SFP+ optics to help the cause. Welcome aboard! -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Oct. 25, 2015

Re: Cologix donates Loaner 4550 switch

by Nevin Lyne

This is great! Thank you Cologix for the continued support of MICE. Same goes for everyone that continues to provide time, energy and equipment too. Nevin Lyne Arcustech, LLC. https://www.arcustech.com/ > On Oct 20, 2015, at 11:51 AM, Mike Hemphill <mike.hemphill(a)COLOGIX.COM> wrote: > > Good afternoon, > Cologix has donated a loaner Juniper 4550 to augment the existing Juniper platform. > The intent is to provide a bridge to an ultimate upgrade in the switching platform to a more robust chassis solution. > Cologix has purchased a new 4550 which it is “loaning” to MICE. > This will allow MICE to accept additional 10-Gig members. > Additionally, Cologix will provide the maintenance coverage for this device under an agreement that we have that is covering the rest of the Cologix Juniper platform devices. > Cologix is pleased to support MICE and we truly appreciate our customers business & the opportunity to host the MICE platform in the Cologix data center. > Best regards, > Mike > > Mike Hemphill > General Manager | Cologix, Inc. > 511 11th Ave S, Suite 200 | Minneapolis, MN 55415 > P: 1+612.333.1922 | M: 1+612.812.5242 > mike.hemphill(a)cologix.com > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 20, 2015

Re: Cologix donates Loaner 4550 switch

by Reid Fishler

I want to thank Cologix for their continued support. Reid On Oct 20, 2015 11:51 AM, "Mike Hemphill" <mike.hemphill(a)cologix.com> wrote: > Good afternoon, > > Cologix has donated a loaner Juniper 4550 to augment the existing Juniper > platform. > > The intent is to provide a bridge to an ultimate upgrade in the switching > platform to a more robust chassis solution. > > Cologix has purchased a new 4550 which it is “loaning” to MICE. > > This will allow MICE to accept additional 10-Gig members. > > Additionally, Cologix will provide the maintenance coverage for this > device under an agreement that we have that is covering the rest of the > Cologix Juniper platform devices. > > Cologix is pleased to support MICE and we truly appreciate our customers > business & the opportunity to host the MICE platform in the Cologix data > center. > > Best regards, > > Mike > > > > Mike Hemphill > General Manager | *Cologix, Inc.* <http://www.cologix.com/> > 511 11th Ave S, Suite 200 | Minneapolis, MN 55415 > P: 1+612.333.1922 | M: 1+612.812.5242 > mike.hemphill(a)cologix.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Oct. 20, 2015

Cologix donates Loaner 4550 switch

by Mike Hemphill

Good afternoon, Cologix has donated a loaner Juniper 4550 to augment the existing Juniper platform. The intent is to provide a bridge to an ultimate upgrade in the switching platform to a more robust chassis solution. Cologix has purchased a new 4550 which it is “loaning” to MICE. This will allow MICE to accept additional 10-Gig members. Additionally, Cologix will provide the maintenance coverage for this device under an agreement that we have that is covering the rest of the Cologix Juniper platform devices. Cologix is pleased to support MICE and we truly appreciate our customers business & the opportunity to host the MICE platform in the Cologix data center. Best regards, Mike Mike Hemphill General Manager | *Cologix, Inc.* <http://www.cologix.com/> 511 11th Ave S, Suite 200 | Minneapolis, MN 55415 P: 1+612.333.1922 | M: 1+612.812.5242 mike.hemphill(a)cologix.com

Oct. 20, 2015

MICE UG Meeting

by Shaun Carlson

Good morning all! We are planning on having the next UG meeting on November 16th at 1 pm in the 511 building. I will send out a follow-up with more specific information in the next couple of days. Please let me know what agenda items you may have for the meeting! Thanks! s *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

Oct. 19, 2015

Re: Netflix Issues

by Andrew Hoyos

https://twitter.com/Neustar/status/654780398287745024 <https://twitter.com/Neustar/status/654780398287745024> -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Oct 15, 2015, at 3:08 PM, Charles Monson <monson(a)wins.net> wrote: > > I can confirm from Airstream. I also tried DNS lookups against 4.2.2.1 and 8.8.8.8 and both failed. Downdetector.com shows a lot of reports in the last 30 minutes or so too. > > > Charles Monson > Associate Network Administrator, Airstream Communications (AS11796) > P: 715-838-4432 | www.wins.net > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby > Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 4:58 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Netflix Issues > > I have received several complaints of people not being able to get to Netflix, and after some research it appears that they are using ULTRADNS.NET for their name servers, and that is where the issue lies. I just wanted to see if others were seeing the same thing. > > Jeremy Lumby > Minnesota VoIP > 9217 17th Ave S > Suite 216 > Bloomington, MN 55425 > Main: 612-355-7740 x211 > Direct: 612-392-6814 > EFax: 952-873-7425 > jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

Oct. 15, 2015

Re: Netflix Issues

by Charles Monson

I can confirm from Airstream. I also tried DNS lookups against 4.2.2.1 and 8.8.8.8 and both failed. Downdetector.com shows a lot of reports in the last 30 minutes or so too. Charles Monson Associate Network Administrator, Airstream Communications (AS11796) P: 715-838-4432 | www.wins.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 4:58 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Netflix Issues I have received several complaints of people not being able to get to Netflix, and after some research it appears that they are using ULTRADNS.NET for their name servers, and that is where the issue lies. I just wanted to see if others were seeing the same thing. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

Oct. 15, 2015

Re: Netflix Issues

by Doug McIntyre

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 04:58:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > I have received several complaints of people not being able to get to Netflix, and after some research it appears that they are using ULTRADNS.NET for their name servers, and that is where the issue lies. I just wanted to see if others were seeing the same thing. Outages list reports major dDoS against UltraDNS, especially their east coast datacenter.. https://twitter.com/hashtag/ultradns -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 15, 2015

Netflix Issues

by Jeremy Lumby

I have received several complaints of people not being able to get to Netflix, and after some research it appears that they are using ULTRADNS.NET for their name servers, and that is where the issue lies. I just wanted to see if others were seeing the same thing. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

Oct. 15, 2015

Switch Module Upgrade

by Jeremy Lumby

The last module has been added to the 4500. There were no issues detected during the installation. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

Oct. 8, 2015

Re: MICE Route Server issues?

by Doug McIntyre

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 06:51:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > The route servers operating system, and switches do not use the BGP routes from BIRD, therefore the return traffic goes via static route through IPHouse since they are donating bandwidth to manage the servers/switches externally since the MICE /24 does not exist on the internet. If they were making changes this afternoon, that could explain it. ipHouse did have some routing issues this afternoon during that time frame. We found a lurking issue that had been sitting dormant for 2.5 years that something flapped and it reared its ugly head. As Jeremy said, the route reflectors run BIRD, and BIRD by design doesn't install the routes into the routetable of the OS, although I believe that is an option now-a-days. The RR's are dual interfaced, one interface lives in ipHouse IP address space. The other interface lives on the IXC netblock. All the BGP talkers live on the IXC netblock too, so anything talking BGP to them are just fine. But, the RRs only can talk directly to 206.108.255.0/24, if you are pinging it from beyond your interface to the IXC, it will default route over ipHouse IP space out again, as it hasn't learned the routes it talks, it has to route external back out. Overall, I think the BIRD model works well, but depends on us not having any issues.. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 6, 2015

Re: MICE Route Server issues?

by Mike Horwath

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 06:51:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > The route servers operating system, and switches do not use the BGP > routes from BIRD, therefore the return traffic goes via static route > through IPHouse since they are donating bandwidth to manage the > servers/switches externally since the MICE /24 does not exist on the > internet. If they were making changes this afternoon, that could > explain it. No, that's not the case. I'll let Doug explain. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Oct. 6, 2015

Re: MICE Route Server issues?

by Jeremy Lumby

The route servers operating system, and switches do not use the BGP routes from BIRD, therefore the return traffic goes via static route through IPHouse since they are donating bandwidth to manage the servers/switches externally since the MICE /24 does not exist on the internet. If they were making changes this afternoon, that could explain it. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Anthony Anderberg Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 5:38 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Route Server issues? My internal monitoring (via SmokePing) shows ping packet loss between 15:20 and 16:10 to the MICE route servers. As others have mentioned I don't show any BGP or traffic volume issues, and everything looks OK now. I believe the only change today was adding ports to the Netflix LAG this morning at ~11:15, the last time the MICE route server configuration changed was August 13th. Will continue to look for relevant data points... Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net www.nutelecom.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 4:56 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Route Server issues? Just noticed that the utilization graphs were missing data from this afternoon, however not the graphs from the CNS switch, which I assume is on another netblock. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Anton Kapela Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 4:33 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Route Server issues? Observing same issues here pinging same route severs from any source netblock in AS16842. -Tk > On Oct 5, 2015, at 4:10 PM, James Stahr <stahr(a)MAILBAG.COM> wrote: > > The exchange *seems* fine, but I can't reliably ping the route servers right now. My BGP sessions to them are up and stable, but ICMP isn't operating "normally" - has anything changed? This started at 15:24 CDT today: > > [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.1 PING 206.108.255.1 > (206.108.255.1) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=7.06 ms > > --- 206.108.255.1 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 1 received, 90% packet loss, time 9000ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 7.062/7.062/7.062/0.000 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ > ping -c 10 206.108.255.2 PING 206.108.255.2 (206.108.255.2) 56(84) > bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=7.13 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=6.98 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=6.94 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=7.05 ms > > --- 206.108.255.2 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 4 received, 60% packet loss, time 9001ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 6.942/7.028/7.135/0.093 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ > ping -c 10 206.108.255.52 PING 206.108.255.52 (206.108.255.52) 56(84) > bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=14.5 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=13.6 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=13.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=12.7 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=12.2 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=11.7 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=11.2 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=10 ttl=61 time=11.9 ms > > --- 206.108.255.52 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9002ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 11.289/12.913/14.502/1.052 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion > ~]$ > > > Any new policing policy applied today? I seem to be able to ping normally if I use my 206.108.255.x address, but not reliably from any other address: > > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 > ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 Type > escape sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 > ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source loop1 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 > ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source loop1 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 > ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/2 ms > r-pop-min-1# > > > -James

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: MICE Route Server issues?

by Anthony Anderberg

My internal monitoring (via SmokePing) shows ping packet loss between 15:20 and 16:10 to the MICE route servers. As others have mentioned I don't show any BGP or traffic volume issues, and everything looks OK now. I believe the only change today was adding ports to the Netflix LAG this morning at ~11:15, the last time the MICE route server configuration changed was August 13th. Will continue to look for relevant data points... Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net www.nutelecom.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 4:56 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Route Server issues? Just noticed that the utilization graphs were missing data from this afternoon, however not the graphs from the CNS switch, which I assume is on another netblock. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Anton Kapela Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 4:33 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Route Server issues? Observing same issues here pinging same route severs from any source netblock in AS16842. -Tk > On Oct 5, 2015, at 4:10 PM, James Stahr <stahr(a)MAILBAG.COM> wrote: > > The exchange *seems* fine, but I can't reliably ping the route servers right now. My BGP sessions to them are up and stable, but ICMP isn't operating "normally" - has anything changed? This started at 15:24 CDT today: > > [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.1 PING 206.108.255.1 > (206.108.255.1) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=7.06 ms > > --- 206.108.255.1 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 1 received, 90% packet loss, time 9000ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 7.062/7.062/7.062/0.000 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ > ping -c 10 206.108.255.2 PING 206.108.255.2 (206.108.255.2) 56(84) > bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=7.13 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=6.98 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=6.94 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=7.05 ms > > --- 206.108.255.2 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 4 received, 60% packet loss, time 9001ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 6.942/7.028/7.135/0.093 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ > ping -c 10 206.108.255.52 PING 206.108.255.52 (206.108.255.52) 56(84) > bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=14.5 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=13.6 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=13.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=12.7 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=12.2 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=11.7 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=11.2 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=10 ttl=61 time=11.9 ms > > --- 206.108.255.52 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9002ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 11.289/12.913/14.502/1.052 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion > ~]$ > > > Any new policing policy applied today? I seem to be able to ping normally if I use my 206.108.255.x address, but not reliably from any other address: > > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 > ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 Type > escape sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 > ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source loop1 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 > ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source loop1 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 > ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/2 ms > r-pop-min-1# > > > -James

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: MICE Route Server issues?

by Jeremy Lumby

Just noticed that the utilization graphs were missing data from this afternoon, however not the graphs from the CNS switch, which I assume is on another netblock. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Anton Kapela Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 4:33 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Route Server issues? Observing same issues here pinging same route severs from any source netblock in AS16842. -Tk > On Oct 5, 2015, at 4:10 PM, James Stahr <stahr(a)MAILBAG.COM> wrote: > > The exchange *seems* fine, but I can't reliably ping the route servers right now. My BGP sessions to them are up and stable, but ICMP isn't operating "normally" - has anything changed? This started at 15:24 CDT today: > > [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.1 PING 206.108.255.1 > (206.108.255.1) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=7.06 ms > > --- 206.108.255.1 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 1 received, 90% packet loss, time 9000ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 7.062/7.062/7.062/0.000 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ > ping -c 10 206.108.255.2 PING 206.108.255.2 (206.108.255.2) 56(84) > bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=7.13 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=6.98 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=6.94 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=7.05 ms > > --- 206.108.255.2 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 4 received, 60% packet loss, time 9001ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 6.942/7.028/7.135/0.093 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ > ping -c 10 206.108.255.52 PING 206.108.255.52 (206.108.255.52) 56(84) > bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=14.5 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=13.6 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=13.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=12.7 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=12.2 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=11.7 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=11.2 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=10 ttl=61 time=11.9 ms > > --- 206.108.255.52 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9002ms rtt > min/avg/max/mdev = 11.289/12.913/14.502/1.052 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion > ~]$ > > > Any new policing policy applied today? I seem to be able to ping normally if I use my 206.108.255.x address, but not reliably from any other address: > > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 > ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 Type > escape sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 > ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source loop1 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 > ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source loop1 Type escape > sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 > ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/2 ms > r-pop-min-1# > > > -James

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: MICE Route Server issues?

by Anton Kapela

Observing same issues here pinging same route severs from any source netblock in AS16842. -Tk > On Oct 5, 2015, at 4:10 PM, James Stahr <stahr(a)MAILBAG.COM> wrote: > > The exchange *seems* fine, but I can't reliably ping the route servers right now. My BGP sessions to them are up and stable, but ICMP isn't operating "normally" - has anything changed? This started at 15:24 CDT today: > > [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.1 > PING 206.108.255.1 (206.108.255.1) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=7.06 ms > > --- 206.108.255.1 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 1 received, 90% packet loss, time 9000ms > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 7.062/7.062/7.062/0.000 ms > [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.2 > PING 206.108.255.2 (206.108.255.2) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=7.13 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=6.98 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=6.94 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=7.05 ms > > --- 206.108.255.2 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 4 received, 60% packet loss, time 9001ms > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 6.942/7.028/7.135/0.093 ms > [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.52 > PING 206.108.255.52 (206.108.255.52) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=14.5 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=13.6 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=13.0 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=12.7 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=12.2 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=11.7 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=11.2 ms > 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=10 ttl=61 time=11.9 ms > > --- 206.108.255.52 ping statistics --- > 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9002ms > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 11.289/12.913/14.502/1.052 ms > [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ > > > Any new policing policy applied today? I seem to be able to ping normally if I use my 206.108.255.x address, but not reliably from any other address: > > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source loop1 > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 > ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms > r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source loop1 > Type escape sequence to abort. > Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: > Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 > ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/2 ms > r-pop-min-1# > > > -James

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: MICE Route Server issues?

by Mike Horwath

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 04:10:54PM -0500, James Stahr wrote: > The exchange *seems* fine, but I can't reliably ping the route servers > right now. Is this /24 announced via BGP into the exchange or just over some of the connected members? -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Oct. 5, 2015

MICE Route Server issues?

by James Stahr

The exchange *seems* fine, but I can't reliably ping the route servers right now. My BGP sessions to them are up and stable, but ICMP isn't operating "normally" - has anything changed? This started at 15:24 CDT today: [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.1 PING 206.108.255.1 (206.108.255.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 206.108.255.1: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=7.06 ms --- 206.108.255.1 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 1 received, 90% packet loss, time 9000ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 7.062/7.062/7.062/0.000 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.2 PING 206.108.255.2 (206.108.255.2) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=59 time=7.13 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=6 ttl=59 time=6.98 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=7 ttl=59 time=6.94 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.2: icmp_seq=10 ttl=59 time=7.05 ms --- 206.108.255.2 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 4 received, 60% packet loss, time 9001ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 6.942/7.028/7.135/0.093 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ ping -c 10 206.108.255.52 PING 206.108.255.52 (206.108.255.52) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=2 ttl=61 time=14.5 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=3 ttl=61 time=14.0 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=4 ttl=61 time=13.6 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=5 ttl=61 time=13.0 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=6 ttl=61 time=12.7 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=7 ttl=61 time=12.2 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=8 ttl=61 time=11.7 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=9 ttl=61 time=11.2 ms 64 bytes from 206.108.255.52: icmp_seq=10 ttl=61 time=11.9 ms --- 206.108.255.52 ping statistics --- 10 packets transmitted, 10 received, 0% packet loss, time 9002ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 11.289/12.913/14.502/1.052 ms [stahr@ctg-bastion ~]$ Any new policing policy applied today? I seem to be able to ping normally if I use my 206.108.255.x address, but not reliably from any other address: r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source gig0/0/5 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: Packet sent with a source address of 206.108.255.26 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.1 repeat 100 source loop1 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.1, timeout is 2 seconds: Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms r-pop-min-1#ping 206.108.255.2 repeat 100 source loop1 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 100, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 206.108.255.2, timeout is 2 seconds: Packet sent with a source address of 205.173.182.62 ...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Success rate is 97 percent (97/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/2 ms r-pop-min-1# -James

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: Netflix Additional ports

by Jeremy Lumby

ae2 Last week ae3 was migrated into AE2 as well -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Monday, October 05, 2015 2:16 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Netflix Additional ports On 10/05/2015 10:01 AM, Jason Hanke wrote: > Please assign and add the following ports to the Netflix LAG Which Netflix LAG? They have ae2 and ae3. -- Richard

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: Netflix Additional ports

by Richard Laager

On 10/05/2015 10:01 AM, Jason Hanke wrote: > Please assign and add the following ports to the Netflix LAG Which Netflix LAG? They have ae2 and ae3. -- Richard

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: Netflix Additional ports

by Doug McIntyre

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 10:01:32AM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: > Please assign and add the following ports to the Netflix LAG > > xe-0/2/0 > xe-0/2/1 > xe-0/2/2 Sure thing, added 3 more to the bundle. Ready to go when the optics are installed. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 5, 2015

Netflix Additional ports

by Jason Hanke

Please assign and add the following ports to the Netflix LAG xe-0/2/0 xe-0/2/1 xe-0/2/2 Thanks! -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: Juniper Donation

by Mike Hemphill

Jeremy, Thank you! MICE very much appreciates all that you & Minnesota VoIP does for the exchange!!! Best regards, Mike Mike Hemphill General Manager | Cologix, Inc. 511 11th Ave S, Suite 200 | Minneapolis, MN 55415 P: 1+612.333.1922 | M: 1+612.812.5242 mike.hemphill(a)cologix.com -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Friday, October 02, 2015 3:41 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Juniper Donation I have procured, and will be donating the final expansion module to the 4500 switch. This will max out the 4500 with 10G ports. I plan on installing it on 10/8/2015 around 1PM central time. Based upon the installation of the previous 4500 module, I do not expect any impact on traffic. Could someone who has the appropriate permissions please copy this to the announce list. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

Oct. 5, 2015

Re: Juniper Donation

by Hannigan, Martin

Yes, ditto. Thank you! Your service is very much appreciated Jeremy! Best, Martin > On Oct 2, 2015, at 19:51, Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)GEEKS.ORG> wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 03:41:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: >> Could someone who has the appropriate permissions please copy this >> to the announce list. > > I did it. > > And thank you so very much! > > -- > Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Oct. 2, 2015

Re: Juniper Donation

by Mike Horwath

On Fri, Oct 02, 2015 at 03:41:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > Could someone who has the appropriate permissions please copy this > to the announce list. I did it. And thank you so very much! -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Oct. 2, 2015

Juniper Donation

by Jeremy Lumby

I have procured, and will be donating the final expansion module to the 4500 switch. This will max out the 4500 with 10G ports. I plan on installing it on 10/8/2015 around 1PM central time. Based upon the installation of the previous 4500 module, I do not expect any impact on traffic. Could someone who has the appropriate permissions please copy this to the announce list. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

Oct. 2, 2015

Re: Upcoming MICE Meeting

by Jeremy Lumby

I am not as particular about the date, however I would suggest moving back to a start time of 3PM like it was several years ago. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Shaun Carlson Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 7:36 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Upcoming MICE Meeting All, We will NOT be having a meeting on 9/16 as originally planned. I will send out a new date in a few days. Please let me know if there is any preference for or against a specific date in October time frame. Thanks! s Shaun Carlson Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 3, 2015

Re: Upcoming MICE Meeting

by Hannigan, Martin

Not conflicting with NANOG or the ICANN meeting would be nice. I’d like to be able to make it for once! :-) > On Sep 3, 2015, at 8:35 AM, Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson(a)ARVIG.COM> wrote: > > All, > > We will NOT be having a meeting on 9/16 as originally planned. I will send out a new date in a few days. > > Please let me know if there is any preference for or against a specific date in October time frame. > > Thanks! > > s > > Shaun Carlson > Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig > ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com <mailto:shaun.carlson@arvig.com> > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…>

Sept. 3, 2015

Upcoming MICE Meeting

by Shaun Carlson

All, We will NOT be having a meeting on 9/16 as originally planned. I will send out a new date in a few days. Please let me know if there is any preference for or against a specific date in October time frame. Thanks! s *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

Sept. 3, 2015

Are there any public bwctl servers within MICE?

by Tim Peiffer

Other than the University of Minnesota, are there any unregistered publicly reachable bwctl servers within MICE in specific, or MInnesota in general ? I would like to do speed measurement across CenturyLink DSL, Comcast Cable and a few other residential networks. Tim Peiffer -- Tim Peiffer Network Support Engineer Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota/NorthernLights GigaPOP +1 612 626-7884 (desk)

Sept. 1, 2015

PSA: Level3/TWTC

by Mike Horwath

Nice outage: http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2015-August/078610.html eewps! Affecting people I know and going on 4 hours long. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Aug. 27, 2015

Re: Level3?

by John Unger

Patrick.carroll(a)level3.com 312-805-8830 cell 312-895-8421 desk John -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Bil MacLeslie Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 2:21 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Level3? On 8/26/15 2:14 PM, John Unger wrote: > We also buy Level3 here in Minneapolis and Milwaukee markets. Good > products good support... Can be a bit high priced at times... We buy > through the wholesale group (Chicago) and get better pricing. Let us > know if we can help... > > John John, Do you have a contact in the wholesale group I can reach out to? Bil -- Bil K. MacLeslie | TGWGTD | ipHouse | www.ipHouse.com Office: 612-337-6337 | Direct: 612-337-6206 | Cell: 612-618-1218

Aug. 26, 2015

Re: Level3?

by Bil MacLeslie

On 8/26/15 2:14 PM, John Unger wrote: > We also buy Level3 here in Minneapolis and Milwaukee markets. Good > products good support... Can be a bit high priced at times... We buy > through the wholesale group (Chicago) and get better pricing. Let us > know if we can help... > > John John, Do you have a contact in the wholesale group I can reach out to? Bil -- Bil K. MacLeslie | TGWGTD | ipHouse | www.ipHouse.com Office: 612-337-6337 | Direct: 612-337-6206 | Cell: 612-618-1218

Aug. 26, 2015

Re: Level3?

by John Unger

We also buy Level3 here in Minneapolis and Milwaukee markets. Good products good support... Can be a bit high priced at times... We buy through the wholesale group (Chicago) and get better pricing. Let us know if we can help... John -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Howard Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2015 11:29 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Level3? Doug, We buy Level3 but will probably phase them out due to cost that is significantly higher than the marketplace. From a technical perspective, they have been an outstanding provider. If you want to send me a few destinations I can do a few traceroutes and send you the results. Steve On 08/19/2015 02:44 PM, Doug McIntyre wrote: > Does anybody buy Level3 transit in the Minneapolis area? > > We're looking for certain paths out of them that have been hotpoints > in the past, so looking to run some traceroutes through their transit > in Minneapolis to a few points. > > Thanks! >

Aug. 26, 2015

Re: Number of prefixes received exceeds limit - HE IPv6 routes via the route servers?

by James Stahr

On 08/20/2015 4:00 PM, David Farmer wrote: > Sorry guys that was us, or one of our participants. > > They made some changes about an hour ago, and announced the whole IPv6 > table to us. We had a prefix list configured, but it seems to be > empty now, not sure how or when that happened. > Ah, that explains it. I found the other missing piece in our configuration and Rob was right about filters. We've got an explicit deny against ^6939_ from the route server because of our bilateral peering with HE and that's keeping our IPv6 routes from the route server down to 45 and 49 routes respectively so setting a limit of 150 is within reason. But the routes you sent wouldn't have matched the filter, hence the prefix limit was exceeded. Everyone else must have a 13K+ limit and therefor didn't notice the additional paths being injected. Or folks haven't put a prefix-limit on their IPv6 neighbors because if this was a full table, that's nearly 23K routes... -James > We're upgrading to ASRs soon, and they have a check for empty prefix > lists. > > On 8/20/15 15:12 , James Stahr wrote: >> Is someone just start re-advertising HE via the route server or did we >> just configure today a session for HE to the route server? It was my >> impression that they only did bilateral peering. >> >> Aug 20 14:04:01.902 CDT: %BGP-4-MAXPFX: Number of prefixes received from >> 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 (afi 1) reaches 143, max 150 >> Aug 20 14:04:01.908 CDT: %BGP-3-MAXPFXEXCEED: Number of prefixes >> received from 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 (afi 1): 151 exceeds limit 150 >> >> Our session is currently down and will remain down. When the session >> was up, we saw all of the paths start with 6939. >> >> James Stahr >> CDW > >

Aug. 20, 2015

Re: Number of prefixes received exceeds limit - HE IPv6 routes via the route servers?

by David Farmer

Sorry guys that was us, or one of our participants. They made some changes about an hour ago, and announced the whole IPv6 table to us. We had a prefix list configured, but it seems to be empty now, not sure how or when that happened. We're upgrading to ASRs soon, and they have a check for empty prefix lists. On 8/20/15 15:12 , James Stahr wrote: > Is someone just start re-advertising HE via the route server or did we > just configure today a session for HE to the route server? It was my > impression that they only did bilateral peering. > > Aug 20 14:04:01.902 CDT: %BGP-4-MAXPFX: Number of prefixes received from > 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 (afi 1) reaches 143, max 150 > Aug 20 14:04:01.908 CDT: %BGP-3-MAXPFXEXCEED: Number of prefixes > received from 2001:504:27::D1AF:0:1 (afi 1): 151 exceeds limit 150 > > Our session is currently down and will remain down. When the session > was up, we saw all of the paths start with 6939. > > James Stahr > CDW -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer(a)umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================

Aug. 20, 2015

Re: Number of prefixes received exceeds limit - HE IPv6 routes via the route servers?

by Rob Mosher

This is not correct. We only advertise our customer routes to the route servers. We currently send 11764 routes, and have not made any recent changes. -- Rob Mosher Senior Network and Software Engineer Hurricane Electric / AS6939 On 8/20/2015 4:18 PM, Doug McIntyre wrote: > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 03:12:10PM -0500, James Stahr wrote: >> Is someone just start re-advertising HE via the route server or did we just >> configure today a session for HE to the route server? It was my impression >> that they only did bilateral peering. > > HE has always given transit of the IPv6 full table back to the route servers at MICE. > > I had to increase the max prefixes they generated back in Feb of 2013, so this > shouldn't be new.. >

Aug. 20, 2015