- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Juniper Switch upgrade

by Mike Horwath

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 01:55:53PM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > Agreed. However, I would say that for those with Cisco gear where an > address swap requires removing the address from the interface (and > thus downing their BGP sessions), making the new address primary and > the old address secondary could, ideally, be done during the switch > upgrade and thus avoid an additional outage. conf term int bajlliongmillibit0/0 ip address secondary-ip secondary-netmask ^z write mem notice I didn't remove the primary address...nor the old secondary. Should work? -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau(a)iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkeley Fortune ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 22, 2012

Re: Juniper Switch upgrade

by Owen DeLong

Agreed. However, I would say that for those with Cisco gear where an address swap requires removing the address from the interface (and thus downing their BGP sessions), making the new address primary and the old address secondary could, ideally, be done during the switch upgrade and thus avoid an additional outage. Owen On Aug 22, 2012, at 12:47 , Justin Krejci <jkrejci(a)USINTERNET.COM> wrote: > While I agree with the general sentiment that the IP change and switch change will likely be smooth, the IP change can be done more transparently and has literally nothing to do with the L2 gear. > To that end, I don't see any reason to not configure/assign the new IP block now and let folks start using it right away, even before the switch switch. > > > > > On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 15:54 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2012, at 14:07 , Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)IPHOUSE.NET> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 03:54:19PM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Mike Bushard, Jr >> >> <mike.bushard(a)arvig.com> wrote: >> >>> I typically would agree Owen, but in this case it may make sense. Everyone >> >>> will be down already, and we won't have multiple outages to the entire >> >>> exchange for IP changes. There will be a considerable amount of work if >> >>> everyone changes addressing on different schedules. I think just saying >> >>> that on day x we are on the long term strategy will save time in this >> >>> case. Our topology is pretty basic today so I think the rick would be >> >>> minimal at this time. >> >> >> >> The time frame is pretty tight for everyone to coordinate bilateral >> >> changes. Esp for the bigger folks. >> >> >> >> What about enabling the new IP addresses on the existing topology and >> >> moving one of the route servers to the new block. Then setting a flag >> >> date to remove the existing IP addresses 2 months out. >> > >> > >> > I'm sorry I've been so under the weather, that I've been behind and >> > haven't started coordinating the renumbering with my co-conspirators. >> > >> > Jay, one problem with a method like that, is that there isn't a >> > central router. Everybody is talking all in the same flat space. If >> > somebody changes to talk on their 206.108.255.0/24 IP address, then >> > those that haven't changed yet won't know how to reach their routes. >> > Thus breaking the exchange apart into those that have adjusted, and >> > those that haven't adjusted. What more, the unconfigured people will >> > see the new routes, but can't reach them. >> > >> There's no reason people can't add the new addresses and migrate >> peering sessions individually, one peer at a time, then remove the >> old addresses once that's complete. >> >> I think two months would be a bit narrow on the time frame, however. >> >> > >> > What follows is the plan I had in my head (but not communicated yet) >> > until I saw the oppertunity to just do it all at once. >> > >> > We communicate everybody's new 206.108.255.0/24 IP & 2001:504:27::/48 >> > address, which almost certainly will just be reusing the same last >> > octet as the current one. >> > >> >> Might I suggest on the IPv6 block 2001:504:27:0::/64 be used for the >> exchange (we can use other parts of the /48 later if needed) and that >> we number as follows: >> 2001:504:27:0:AS:NO:XXXX:YYYY >> >> Where AS:NO is the 32 bit as number and XXXX:YYYY is a number chosen >> by the applicable AS to represent the specific router/port combination. >> (Yes, 32 bits for router/port combinations is overkill, but I can't think of >> a better use for the bits). >> >> > Everybody does a secondary of these IP addresses on their MICE facing >> > interface. This has to be completed by such-and-such date. We'd do >> > spot checks with ping to make sure people have completed this. >> > >> >> I would actually suggest making the existing address "secondary" and >> the new addresses "primary" to reduce future downtime. >> >> > Meanwhile, we build duplicate BGP sessions in the route reflectors for >> > when people are ready to cut. >> > >> >> +1 >> >> > After the such-and-such date, then people are free to cut over their >> > BGP sessions to originate from their new IP, and connect to the new >> > BGP session on the route reflectors. >> > >> >> I think the RS peering sessions can be cut this way, but suggest you >> look over my earlier proposal for managing the peer to peer sessions. >> >> > Finally, there is a drop-dead date when all use of the old IP ranges are done. >> > >> > This way, when somebody cuts onto the new BGP session, the >> > unconfigured old people still have a way to reach the new routes >> > (via. the secondary IP addresses configured on their interface). But >> > their BGP sessions don't change until they want them to. >> > >> >> An excellent solution for the RS peering sessions. >> >> > This way is slow, and requires 100% compliance in getting the >> > interface secondary addresses, and then in the final drop-dead date. >> > >> >> Actually, it doesn't require 100% compliance. People can actually add >> the interface secondaries at their convenience and everything continues >> to work with their old address until they choose to cut over. >> >> > OOTH, if everybody goes down for the switch cut, then people can bring >> > up their session when they want to after the maintenance window, but >> > that also means everybody has to be available to cut their configs >> > over that night/weekend as well if they want to continue to talk on >> > the exchange. >> >> If everyone were only peered with the RS, I'd say this might be a feasible >> approach. However, since they aren't, I'd suggest that we point out the >> switch cut as a "recommended time" to apply the new addressing to their >> interfaces and leave it at that. >> >> Owen >> >> ######################################################################## >> >> 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

Aug. 22, 2012

Fwd: TTN-0000107640 University of Minnesota 192.35.86.49 BGP Dropped Packets [ ref:_00D6079Qk._500 [ ref:_00D6079Qk._50060KY8z1:ref ]

by Frank DiGravina

/FYI/ F. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: TTN-0000107640 University of Minnesota 192.35.86.49 BGP Dropped Packets [ ref:_00D6079Qk._500 [ ref:_00D6079Qk._50060KY8z1:ref ] Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:21:40 +0000 (GMT) From: IP Support <ipsupport(a)zayo.com> To: digravin(a)umn.edu <digravin(a)umn.edu> Hello Frank, ZEN had rate-limiter on btb-border76:g1/1.3600 to GigaPop. With that removed, traffic now passing unhindered. If there are any further questions please contact NCC IP Operations, by replying to this email, or calling US 866.236.2824 UK 0-800-169-1646. Thank you, Todd Dresser NCC IP Technician | Zayo Bandwidth 13861 Sunrise Valley Dr. | Suite 450 | Herndon, VA 20171 NCC: 866.236.2824 OPT: 1,3 | O: 571.262.6288 | ncc(a)zayo.com ipsupport(a)zayo.com | http://www.zayo.com ref:_00D6079Qk._50060KY8z1:ref ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 22, 2012

Re: Packet loss between GigaPOP and Onvoy/Zayo

by Jay Hanke

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Larry Patterson <larry(a)atomicdata.com> wrote: > I attempted to report this issue between Zayo and UMN with BGP paths and > packet loss examples on August 15 to Zayo. But because I am not a > customer if Zayo, their support couldn't do anything with it. I'm glad to > hear that the issues are resolved. That being said, what is the method > for reporting networking issues amongst peering members? Usually directly to the peering contact or via the MICE-DISCUSS list. Zayo isn't currently directly connected to the MICE fabric they connect via the Gigapop. Zayo is in the process of turning up a direct connection. They have assignments but I'm not sure if the x-conn has been ordered yet. Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 22, 2012

Re: Packet loss between GigaPOP and Onvoy/Zayo

by Larry Patterson

I attempted to report this issue between Zayo and UMN with BGP paths and packet loss examples on August 15 to Zayo. But because I am not a customer if Zayo, their support couldn't do anything with it. I'm glad to hear that the issues are resolved. That being said, what is the method for reporting networking issues amongst peering members? Thanks, Larry Patterson Chief Technology Officer Atomic Data 615 North 3rd Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 612.466.2000 Main Line 612.466.2080 Direct Dial Twitter <http://twitter.com/AtomicData> | Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/AtomicDataCenters> | LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/companies/atomic-data-centers> Simple. Safe. Smart. www.atomicdata.com <http://www.atomicdata.com/> This message and any information or attachments included therewith is intended only for the individual or entity named above. If the reader is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copy of this message or any information attached or contained therein is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the message and any attachments. Thank you. Please consider the environment before printing this email. On 8/22/12 9:34 AM, "Jeremy Lumby" <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM> wrote: >My contact with Onvoy is willing to work it from the other side (looks to >be a Zayo Bandwidth issue) Unfortunately without a case number, or >Circuit ID, he is stuck. > >On a side note, is there anyone I can push to have Zayo turn up their >direct connection to the exchange? > >-----Original Message----- >From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of >Jay Hanke >Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 9:26 AM >To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Packet loss between GigaPOP and Onvoy/Zayo > >On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Mike Bushard, Jr ><mike.bushard(a)arvig.com> wrote: >> I'd have to agree Jeremy. Phil S from 7 Sigma and I have been working >> on a packet loss issue between CTC and Melrose/Benton/Albany for 2-3 >> months. We recently started noticing packet loss between Melrose and >> Perham via Zayo also, but they claim they never find anything on either >>of the complaints. >> Earlier this week I got a call about another location having issues, >> that one looked to be a L3 to TDS issue and not Zayo, but with all >> this I am having second thoughts. > >Any updates on this issue? I got an email to the peering account asking >us to fix our stuff. > >Jay > >######################################################################## > >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

Aug. 22, 2012

Re: Juniper Switch upgrade

by Justin Krejci

While I agree with the general sentiment that the IP change and switch change will likely be smooth, the IP change can be done more transparently and has literally nothing to do with the L2 gear. To that end, I don't see any reason to not configure/assign the new IP block now and let folks start using it right away, even before the switch switch. On Tue, 2012-08-21 at 15:54 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote: > On Aug 21, 2012, at 14:07 , Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)IPHOUSE.NET> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 03:54:19PM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Mike Bushard, Jr > >> <mike.bushard(a)arvig.com> wrote: > >>> I typically would agree Owen, but in this case it may make sense. Everyone > >>> will be down already, and we won't have multiple outages to the entire > >>> exchange for IP changes. There will be a considerable amount of work if > >>> everyone changes addressing on different schedules. I think just saying > >>> that on day x we are on the long term strategy will save time in this > >>> case. Our topology is pretty basic today so I think the rick would be > >>> minimal at this time. > >> > >> The time frame is pretty tight for everyone to coordinate bilateral > >> changes. Esp for the bigger folks. > >> > >> What about enabling the new IP addresses on the existing topology and > >> moving one of the route servers to the new block. Then setting a flag > >> date to remove the existing IP addresses 2 months out. > > > > > > I'm sorry I've been so under the weather, that I've been behind and > > haven't started coordinating the renumbering with my co-conspirators. > > > > Jay, one problem with a method like that, is that there isn't a > > central router. Everybody is talking all in the same flat space. If > > somebody changes to talk on their 206.108.255.0/24 IP address, then > > those that haven't changed yet won't know how to reach their routes. > > Thus breaking the exchange apart into those that have adjusted, and > > those that haven't adjusted. What more, the unconfigured people will > > see the new routes, but can't reach them. > > > There's no reason people can't add the new addresses and migrate > peering sessions individually, one peer at a time, then remove the > old addresses once that's complete. > > I think two months would be a bit narrow on the time frame, however. > > > > > What follows is the plan I had in my head (but not communicated yet) > > until I saw the oppertunity to just do it all at once. > > > > We communicate everybody's new 206.108.255.0/24 IP & 2001:504:27::/48 > > address, which almost certainly will just be reusing the same last > > octet as the current one. > > > > Might I suggest on the IPv6 block 2001:504:27:0::/64 be used for the > exchange (we can use other parts of the /48 later if needed) and that > we number as follows: > 2001:504:27:0:AS:NO:XXXX:YYYY > > Where AS:NO is the 32 bit as number and XXXX:YYYY is a number chosen > by the applicable AS to represent the specific router/port combination. > (Yes, 32 bits for router/port combinations is overkill, but I can't think of > a better use for the bits). > > > Everybody does a secondary of these IP addresses on their MICE facing > > interface. This has to be completed by such-and-such date. We'd do > > spot checks with ping to make sure people have completed this. > > > > I would actually suggest making the existing address "secondary" and > the new addresses "primary" to reduce future downtime. > > > Meanwhile, we build duplicate BGP sessions in the route reflectors for > > when people are ready to cut. > > > > +1 > > > After the such-and-such date, then people are free to cut over their > > BGP sessions to originate from their new IP, and connect to the new > > BGP session on the route reflectors. > > > > I think the RS peering sessions can be cut this way, but suggest you > look over my earlier proposal for managing the peer to peer sessions. > > > Finally, there is a drop-dead date when all use of the old IP ranges are done. > > > > This way, when somebody cuts onto the new BGP session, the > > unconfigured old people still have a way to reach the new routes > > (via. the secondary IP addresses configured on their interface). But > > their BGP sessions don't change until they want them to. > > > > An excellent solution for the RS peering sessions. > > > This way is slow, and requires 100% compliance in getting the > > interface secondary addresses, and then in the final drop-dead date. > > > > Actually, it doesn't require 100% compliance. People can actually add > the interface secondaries at their convenience and everything continues > to work with their old address until they choose to cut over. > > > OOTH, if everybody goes down for the switch cut, then people can bring > > up their session when they want to after the maintenance window, but > > that also means everybody has to be available to cut their configs > > over that night/weekend as well if they want to continue to talk on > > the exchange. > > If everyone were only peered with the RS, I'd say this might be a feasible > approach. However, since they aren't, I'd suggest that we point out the > switch cut as a "recommended time" to apply the new addressing to their > interfaces and leave it at that. > > Owen > > ######################################################################## > > 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

Aug. 22, 2012

Re: Packet loss issue

by Jeremy Lumby

It looks better to me Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank DiGravina Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:13 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Packet loss issue Dan, Zayo believes they have fixed the problem. Let me know if you concur. Frank -- Frank DiGravina University of Minnesota Networking & Telecommunications Network Operations Phone: 612-626-9074 Cell: 612-386-0449 E-Mail: digravin(a)umn.edu Helpline: 612-301-HELP ######################################################################## 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

Aug. 22, 2012

Re: Packet loss issue

by Frank DiGravina

Dan, Zayo believes they have fixed the problem. Let me know if you concur. Frank -- Frank DiGravina University of Minnesota Networking & Telecommunications Network Operations Phone: 612-626-9074 Cell: 612-386-0449 E-Mail: digravin(a)umn.edu Helpline: 612-301-HELP ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 22, 2012

Re: Packet loss between GigaPOP and Onvoy/Zayo

by Frank DiGravina

On 8/22/12 9:26 AM, Jay Hanke wrote: > On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Mike Bushard, Jr > <mike.bushard(a)arvig.com> wrote: >> I'd have to agree Jeremy. Phil S from 7 Sigma and I have been working on a >> packet loss issue between CTC and Melrose/Benton/Albany for 2-3 months. We >> recently started noticing packet loss between Melrose and Perham via Zayo >> also, but they claim they never find anything on either of the complaints. >> Earlier this week I got a call about another location having issues, that >> one looked to be a L3 to TDS issue and not Zayo, but with all this I am >> having second thoughts. > Any updates on this issue? I got an email to the peering account > asking us to fix our stuff. > > Jay > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 All, A case was opened the latter part of last week with Zayo Bandwidth upon the observation made by Dan Ruda of the State Of Mn DNR that packets were being lost as they traversed the connection between the Northernlights GigaPOP and Zayo. The case opened with Zayo is 107640. A promised call-back from their noc never happened. I spoke to their noc a few minutes ago and poked at them a bit. Their was no resolution. They promised a call-back in an hour. I will keep you posted as things develop. Frank Frank -- Frank DiGravina University of Minnesota Networking & Telecommunications Network Operations Phone: 612-626-9074 Cell: 612-386-0449 E-Mail: digravin(a)umn.edu Helpline: 612-301-HELP ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Aug. 22, 2012

Re: Packet loss between GigaPOP and Onvoy/Zayo

by Mike Bushard, Jr

I am working on it from my side since we have a couple issues (on 3 different circuits), but it's a slow road. Mike Bushard, Jr -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2012 9:26 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Packet loss between GigaPOP and Onvoy/Zayo On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Mike Bushard, Jr <mike.bushard(a)arvig.com> wrote: > I'd have to agree Jeremy. Phil S from 7 Sigma and I have been working > on a packet loss issue between CTC and Melrose/Benton/Albany for 2-3 > months. We recently started noticing packet loss between Melrose and > Perham via Zayo also, but they claim they never find anything on either of the complaints. > Earlier this week I got a call about another location having issues, > that one looked to be a L3 to TDS issue and not Zayo, but with all > this I am having second thoughts. Any updates on this issue? I got an email to the peering account asking us to fix our stuff. Jay ######################################################################## 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

Aug. 22, 2012