EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
Greetings, I wanted to see if anyone here has any thoughts on a small amount (<1%) of packet loss I've been trying to chase down, specific to the MICE EX4200 switch. Aitech/AS13746 has a 1G copper port on the EX4200 switch. It seems that we're seeing a small amount of outbound packet loss (1G to 10G) going participants outside of the EX4200 switch. I might expect this going from 10G to 1G (inbound for us), but it's the opposite where we see the problem: 1G to 10G participants. Doug at ipHouse (ge-1/0/3 on the EX4200) fired up iperf and we did some testing. They're in the same situation: Loss leaving the EX4200. Specifically, I was testing over to US Internet (xe-0/0/14) but seeing it via Onvoy as well. The iperf test I was running was UDP, bandwidth of 69000, and packet size of 172, running in both directions. Essentially--emulating a G.711 SIP call (which is how I noticed the loss). I tested with no loss in both directions within the EX4200. Doug mentioned:
I pulled the VC chassis stats, but it has nothing for drops or re-transmits for it.
Maybe some of our Juniper-centric members have suggestions? It's quite possible it's always been like this-- the loss is small enough that's managed to evade monitoring. I suspect everyone on the EX4200 is affected. ~Matthew
Mathew, Is the dropped traffic crossing the Exchange from the 4200 to one of the other switches or is it random? Thank you, *Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson@mankatonetworks.net On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb@aitech.net> wrote:
Greetings, I wanted to see if anyone here has any thoughts on a small amount (<1%) of packet loss I've been trying to chase down, specific to the MICE EX4200 switch.
Aitech/AS13746 has a 1G copper port on the EX4200 switch. It seems that we're seeing a small amount of outbound packet loss (1G to 10G) going participants outside of the EX4200 switch.
I might expect this going from 10G to 1G (inbound for us), but it's the opposite where we see the problem: 1G to 10G participants.
Doug at ipHouse (ge-1/0/3 on the EX4200) fired up iperf and we did some testing. They're in the same situation: Loss leaving the EX4200. Specifically, I was testing over to US Internet (xe-0/0/14) but seeing it via Onvoy as well.
The iperf test I was running was UDP, bandwidth of 69000, and packet size of 172, running in both directions. Essentially--emulating a G.711 SIP call (which is how I noticed the loss). I tested with no loss in both directions within the EX4200.
Doug mentioned:
I pulled the VC chassis stats, but it has nothing for drops or re-transmits for it.
Maybe some of our Juniper-centric members have suggestions? It's quite possible it's always been like this-- the loss is small enough that's managed to evade monitoring. I suspect everyone on the EX4200 is affected.
~Matthew
------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
Hi Levi, I'm seeing the loss on traffic going from 4200 to 4500. (Whether it's egress of the 4200 or 4500 ingress, i'm not sure). I'm not 100% sure I know what the infrastructure looks like now-- are there two 4500's? As to whether there's loss to one of the "remote" switches, I'm not sure.... If one of the Neutral Path/Mankato Networks/ CNS connected participants would be up for running iperf for a little while, we could find out fairly quickly. ~Matthew *Matthew Beckwell* - V.P. - Network Operations Advanced Integrated Technologies Office: + *1.952.829.5511 x204*E-Mail: matthewb@aitech.net On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Levi Pederson < levipederson@mankatonetworks.net> wrote:
Mathew,
Is the dropped traffic crossing the Exchange from the 4200 to one of the other switches or is it random?
Thank you,
*Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson@mankatonetworks.net
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb@aitech.net> wrote:
Greetings, I wanted to see if anyone here has any thoughts on a small amount (<1%) of packet loss I've been trying to chase down, specific to the MICE EX4200 switch.
Aitech/AS13746 has a 1G copper port on the EX4200 switch. It seems that we're seeing a small amount of outbound packet loss (1G to 10G) going participants outside of the EX4200 switch.
I might expect this going from 10G to 1G (inbound for us), but it's the opposite where we see the problem: 1G to 10G participants.
Doug at ipHouse (ge-1/0/3 on the EX4200) fired up iperf and we did some testing. They're in the same situation: Loss leaving the EX4200. Specifically, I was testing over to US Internet (xe-0/0/14) but seeing it via Onvoy as well.
The iperf test I was running was UDP, bandwidth of 69000, and packet size of 172, running in both directions. Essentially--emulating a G.711 SIP call (which is how I noticed the loss). I tested with no loss in both directions within the EX4200.
Doug mentioned:
I pulled the VC chassis stats, but it has nothing for drops or re-transmits for it.
Maybe some of our Juniper-centric members have suggestions? It's quite possible it's always been like this-- the loss is small enough that's managed to evade monitoring. I suspect everyone on the EX4200 is affected.
~Matthew
------------------------------
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
Mathew, We have a server up in 511 and would be interested in looking into assisting however we can. We'll most likely be up in 511 soon. I can keep you informed. Thank you, *Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson@mankatonetworks.net On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb@aitech.net> wrote:
Hi Levi, I'm seeing the loss on traffic going from 4200 to 4500. (Whether it's egress of the 4200 or 4500 ingress, i'm not sure).
I'm not 100% sure I know what the infrastructure looks like now-- are there two 4500's?
As to whether there's loss to one of the "remote" switches, I'm not sure.... If one of the Neutral Path/Mankato Networks/ CNS connected participants would be up for running iperf for a little while, we could find out fairly quickly.
~Matthew
*Matthew Beckwell* - V.P. - Network Operations Advanced Integrated Technologies Office: + *1.952.829.5511 <1.952.829.5511> x204*E-Mail: matthewb@aitech.net
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Levi Pederson < levipederson@mankatonetworks.net> wrote:
Mathew,
Is the dropped traffic crossing the Exchange from the 4200 to one of the other switches or is it random?
Thank you,
*Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson@mankatonetworks.net
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb@aitech.net> wrote:
Greetings, I wanted to see if anyone here has any thoughts on a small amount (<1%) of packet loss I've been trying to chase down, specific to the MICE EX4200 switch.
Aitech/AS13746 has a 1G copper port on the EX4200 switch. It seems that we're seeing a small amount of outbound packet loss (1G to 10G) going participants outside of the EX4200 switch.
I might expect this going from 10G to 1G (inbound for us), but it's the opposite where we see the problem: 1G to 10G participants.
Doug at ipHouse (ge-1/0/3 on the EX4200) fired up iperf and we did some testing. They're in the same situation: Loss leaving the EX4200. Specifically, I was testing over to US Internet (xe-0/0/14) but seeing it via Onvoy as well.
The iperf test I was running was UDP, bandwidth of 69000, and packet size of 172, running in both directions. Essentially--emulating a G.711 SIP call (which is how I noticed the loss). I tested with no loss in both directions within the EX4200.
Doug mentioned:
I pulled the VC chassis stats, but it has nothing for drops or re-transmits for it.
Maybe some of our Juniper-centric members have suggestions? It's quite possible it's always been like this-- the loss is small enough that's managed to evade monitoring. I suspect everyone on the EX4200 is affected.
~Matthew
------------------------------
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
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:49:52PM -0500, Matthew Beckwell wrote:
I'm seeing the loss on traffic going from 4200 to 4500. (Whether it's egress of the 4200 or 4500 ingress, i'm not sure).
I'm not 100% sure I know what the infrastructure looks like now-- are there two 4500's?
Yes, there is a VC stack of EX4200 EX4500 EX4550 To summarize what Matthew has told me. EX4200 -> EX4200 no UDP packet loss EX4200 -> EX4500 Small ammount of UDP packet loss EX4500 -> EX4200 No detected UDP packet loss EX4500 -> EX4500 no UDP packet loss -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn@iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
On Sep 19, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn@IPHOUSE.NET> wrote:
Yes, there is a VC stack of
EX4200 EX4500 EX4550
What medium is the VC built on and physical topology? Just VC cables on the rear ringed through all 3? Specific to any single 4500 destination or is it doing it to both the 4500 and the 4550? Check ‘show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface <src int> destination-interface <dest int>’. Common VC port in the mix to any of the reported loss paths? -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa@gmail.com
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 02:03:41PM -0500, Andrew Hoyos wrote:
What medium is the VC built on and physical topology? Just VC cables on the rear ringed through all 3?
Yes, VC cabling in a ring, and using the VCP modules and cabling on the EX4550.
Specific to any single 4500 destination or is it doing it to both the 4500 and the 4550?
He wasn't aware of the EX4550, there aren't many ports lit there yet, he has just been testing different ports on the the EX4500.
Check ‘show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface <src int> destination-interface <dest int>’. Common VC port in the mix to any of the reported loss paths?
I think in general, the VC ports run Active/Passive, so only one is "active" at a time going out of a box without load balancing, so only one (ie. vcp-1) typically shows up for all paths. But either way, the virtual-chassis stats show zero errors, all the vcp-? ports show zero errors or drops. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn@iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
On Sep 19, 2016, at 2:19 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn@iphouse.net> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 02:03:41PM -0500, Andrew Hoyos wrote:
What medium is the VC built on and physical topology? Just VC cables on the rear ringed through all 3?
Yes, VC cabling in a ring, and using the VCP modules and cabling on the EX4550.
What’s the actual topology though? 4500 -> 4200 -> 4550 -> back to 4500?
Specific to any single 4500 destination or is it doing it to both the 4500 and the 4550?
He wasn't aware of the EX4550, there aren't many ports lit there yet, he has just been testing different ports on the the EX4500.
UW Madison operates some IPerf servers you could try against too, see: https://kb.wisc.edu/uwsysnet/page.php?id=41947 They are on the 4550, it appears, so more data points to be gleaned there.
Check ‘show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface <src int> destination-interface <dest int>’. Common VC port in the mix to any of the reported loss paths?
I think in general, the VC ports run Active/Passive, so only one is "active" at a time going out of a box without load balancing, so only one (ie. vcp-1) typically shows up for all paths.
Kinda, there is a SPF calculation that happens based on src/dst interfaces. It matters which PFE of the switch the port is on (1 hop != switch, it’s actually each PFE hop). Depending on the topology here, things could be going a variety of ways. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa@gmail.com
Testing against the UW iperf servers seems to be mostly clean. (Occasionally, I get one out-of-order, but no loss running the same 10M UDP test). So this (somewhat limited) test seems to show the current path from 4200 -> 4550 is okay. ~Matthew On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa@gmail.com> wrote:
UW Madison operates some IPerf servers you could try against too, see: https://kb.wisc.edu/uwsysnet/page.php?id=41947 They are on the 4550, it appears, so more data points to be gleaned there.
So this brings an issue I was watching for a couple days into a new light. I have a customer that is in Rochester MN on Charter's Fiber. They have 2 locations just a couple miles apart. I was monitoring their connections before we start to do their voice on the 22nd. I was surprised to see I was getting about 0.3% loss to both locations. The loss would happen at the same times, so I was tempted to blame Charter. When Matthew posted this today it reminded me that charter is on the 4500 and I am on the 4200 just like Matthew. So I started two different tests this afternoon, and I now have gathered results for last 6 hours, so I feel confident in the result that there is loss in traffic going from the 4200 to the 4500. Test 1 was to add a static route to one of my customer's Rochester locations, so that traffic from me to them went via HE, and then Charter. The location that I added the static route to has had no loss for the past 6 hours, and the location that I did not change has continued to show 0.3% loss. Obviously the return path still takes MICE, so I do not believe traffic from the 4500 to the 4200 is having a problem. Test 2 was to start a running ping to 9 different interface IP addresses on MICE. I choose 3 from each switch to avoid the possibility that one router was an outlier and overly deprioritizing ICMP. I let that run for almost 6 hours, and all interfaces on the 4200, and the 4550 showed 0 loss, and all three on the 4500 showed 0.2% loss. Looking deeper into the data, the loss that happened on the 4500 would often happen at the same time for all three addresses. This leads me to wonder if there is possibly an issue with the stacking modules, or they are being saturated. Let me preface this by saying I am not a Juniper guy, and I may be wrong, however my understanding is that the stacking modules are 128Gig which would seem like plenty, however it is my understanding that each module has 2 ports, and each one is 64G, and then that 64G is actually in + out, and therefore a single direction of one port could get maxed out at 32G. I remember when we added the 4550 I asked if there was a way to graph the traffic on them, and I believe we were not able to. While I do not think that they are saturated, I wonder if there are small bursts that get them near to capacity that are far too short to show up on the 5 minute averages. 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@mnvoip.com From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Matthew Beckwell Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 4:24 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Testing against the UW iperf servebbb, but no loss running the same 10M UDP test). So this (somewhat limited) test seems to show the current path from 4200 -> 4550 is okay. ~Matthew On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa@gmail.com> wrote: UW Madison operates some IPerf servers you could try against too, see: https://kb.wisc.edu/uwsysnet/page.php?id=41947 They are on the 4550, it appears, so more data points to be gleaned there. To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
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@iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
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@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@iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
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@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@iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
-- Doug McIntyre <merlyn@iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
On Sep 20, 2016, at 8:29 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn@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@gmail.com
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@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@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@iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
-- Doug McIntyre <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@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
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.s... 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@gmail.com
On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke@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@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@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@iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
-- Doug McIntyre <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@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
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@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.s... 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@gmail.com
On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke@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@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@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@iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
-- Doug McIntyre <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@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
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@mankatonetworks.net On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:47 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@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@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@gmail.com
On Sep 20, 2016, at 9:21 AM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke@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@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@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@iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
-- Doug McIntyre <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@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
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@Geeks.ORG
On Sep 20, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau@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@gmail.com
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@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau@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@gmail.com
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
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@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@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau@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@gmail.com
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@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
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:29:46AM -0500, Andrew Hoyos wrote:
On Sep 20, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau@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@Geeks.ORG
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@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sep 20, 2016, at 10:18 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau@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@gmail.com
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@mankatonetworks.net On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau@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@Geeks.ORG
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@gmail.com
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@mankatonetworks.net On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa@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@gmail.com
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@iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
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@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.
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@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@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.s... 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
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@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
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@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@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
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@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
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@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@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
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@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@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@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@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
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@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@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@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@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@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
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@iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
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@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@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@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
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@Geeks.ORG
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@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@iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
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@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@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@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@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
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@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@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@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@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@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
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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: 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@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@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@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@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
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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: 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@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@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@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@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
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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM *To:* 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] *On Behalf Of *Jason Hanke *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM *To:* 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@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@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@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@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
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@mankatonetworks.net On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM *To:* 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] *On Behalf Of *Jason Hanke *Sent:* Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM *To:* 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@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@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@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@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
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@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@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@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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM<mailto:jlumby@MNVOIP.COM>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@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@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@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@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@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@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
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@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@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@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@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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM<mailto:jlumby@MNVOIP.COM>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@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@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@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@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@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@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
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@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@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@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@mankatonetworks.net On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: 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@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@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@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@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
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@gmail.com
On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@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@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@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@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@mankatonetworks.net
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: 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@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@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@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@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
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@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@gmail.com
On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@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@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@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@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@mankatonetworks.net
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: 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@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@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@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@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
Ok, it's there. Firmwared (holy crap I forget the hell that is the time commitment to firmware ex4200) to as listed below and with c13/c14 cables and stacking cables. me0.0 is dhcp root is mice987z admin is mice987z ssh is on -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants 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@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@gmail.com
On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@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@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@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@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@mankatonetworks.net
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: 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@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@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@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@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
I will probably be there tomorrow to assist in the physical portion of the installation with Doug/Anthony. I volunteer to be the guinea pig, and test for loss prior to scheduling a maintenance window to cut over the other 1G members on. Jay, could you give us port assignments for the L2 link to the 4500s, and an IP for the new switch. Thanks, Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Ok, it's there. Firmwared (holy crap I forget the hell that is the time commitment to firmware ex4200) to as listed below and with c13/c14 cables and stacking cables. me0.0 is dhcp root is mice987z admin is mice987z ssh is on -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants 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@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@gmail.com
On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@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@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@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@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@mankatonetworks.net
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: 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@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@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@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@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
Do you want the LAG split between the 4500 and 4550? Jay On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
I will probably be there tomorrow to assist in the physical portion of the installation with Doug/Anthony. I volunteer to be the guinea pig, and test for loss prior to scheduling a maintenance window to cut over the other 1G members on.
Jay, could you give us port assignments for the L2 link to the 4500s, and an IP for the new switch.
Thanks, Jeremy
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
Ok, it's there. Firmwared (holy crap I forget the hell that is the time commitment to firmware ex4200) to as listed below and with c13/c14 cables and stacking cables.
me0.0 is dhcp
root is mice987z
admin is mice987z
ssh is on
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
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@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@gmail.com
On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@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@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@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@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@mankatonetworks.net
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: 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@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@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@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@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
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
I am open to input on that. If we run into further errors, it would probably be easier to troubleshoot if it was not split across both, however for load balancing/redundancy it makes sense to split. I do not think there is a ton of load from the 1G members, so I am leaning towards putting them both on 1 From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:16 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Do you want the LAG split between the 4500 and 4550? Jay On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote: I will probably be there tomorrow to assist in the physical portion of the installation with Doug/Anthony. I volunteer to be the guinea pig, and test for loss prior to scheduling a maintenance window to cut over the other 1G members on. Jay, could you give us port assignments for the L2 link to the 4500s, and an IP for the new switch. Thanks, Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Ok, it's there. Firmwared (holy crap I forget the hell that is the time commitment to firmware ex4200) to as listed below and with c13/c14 cables and stacking cables. me0.0 is dhcp root is mice987z admin is mice987z ssh is on -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants 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@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@gmail.com
On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@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@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@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@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@mankatonetworks.net
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: 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@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@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@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@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
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@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
I know it’s more work, but I’d like to suggest testing on 1, then testing on 2. If the results are the same, stick with 2. If necessary for troubleshooting, shut down the second one temporarily and/or migrate back to non-split. I’d hate to see the 1G members dropped from the exchange due to failure of a single line card or switch when that can be avoided. Owen On Sep 21, 2016, at 14:20 , Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: I am open to input on that. If we run into further errors, it would probably be easier to troubleshoot if it was not split across both, however for load balancing/redundancy it makes sense to split. I do not think there is a ton of load from the 1G members, so I am leaning towards putting them both on 1 From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:16 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@lists.iphouse.net> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Do you want the LAG split between the 4500 and 4550? Jay On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: I will probably be there tomorrow to assist in the physical portion of the installation with Doug/Anthony. I volunteer to be the guinea pig, and test for loss prior to scheduling a maintenance window to cut over the other 1G members on. Jay, could you give us port assignments for the L2 link to the 4500s, and an IP for the new switch. Thanks, Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Ok, it's there. Firmwared (holy crap I forget the hell that is the time commitment to firmware ex4200) to as listed below and with c13/c14 cables and stacking cables. me0.0 is dhcp root is mice987z admin is mice987z ssh is on -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Pulled jinstall-ex-4200-12.3R12.4-domestic-signed just now. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:05 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@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@gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>
On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumby@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<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 11:58 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@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<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:38 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@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<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Levi Pederson Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:28 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS@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@mankatonetworks.net<mailto:levipederson@mankatonetworks.net>
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <ben.wiechman@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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM<mailto:jlumby@MNVOIP.COM>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@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@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@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@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@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@neutralpath.net<mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net> www.neutralpath.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neutralpath.net&d=DQ...>
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-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DMICE-2DDISCUSS-26A-3D1&d=DQMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=Q_d8tNiSzoBecM8os8iGQA&m=4rPPeZYvTymLxsOfZSpRDgnJiJimC1Ps8_RLwyoagIw&s=5giKXGkMpuBhFjpCWR_xKE7z2iwpocXCwufDlZ1KpYg&e=>
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-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DMICE-2DDISCUSS-26A-3D1&d=DQMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=Q_d8tNiSzoBecM8os8iGQA&m=4rPPeZYvTymLxsOfZSpRDgnJiJimC1Ps8_RLwyoagIw&s=5giKXGkMpuBhFjpCWR_xKE7z2iwpocXCwufDlZ1KpYg&e=>
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-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DMICE-2DDISCUSS-26A-3D1&d=DQMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=Q_d8tNiSzoBecM8os8iGQA&m=4rPPeZYvTymLxsOfZSpRDgnJiJimC1Ps8_RLwyoagIw&s=5giKXGkMpuBhFjpCWR_xKE7z2iwpocXCwufDlZ1KpYg&e=>
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-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DMICE-2DDISCUSS-26A-3D1&d=DQMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=Q_d8tNiSzoBecM8os8iGQA&m=4rPPeZYvTymLxsOfZSpRDgnJiJimC1Ps8_RLwyoagIw&s=5giKXGkMpuBhFjpCWR_xKE7z2iwpocXCwufDlZ1KpYg&e=>
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-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DMICE-2DDISCUSS-26A-3D1&d=DQMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=Q_d8tNiSzoBecM8os8iGQA&m=4rPPeZYvTymLxsOfZSpRDgnJiJimC1Ps8_RLwyoagIw&s=5giKXGkMpuBhFjpCWR_xKE7z2iwpocXCwufDlZ1KpYg&e=>
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-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DMICE-2DDISCUSS-26A-3D1&d=DQMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=Q_d8tNiSzoBecM8os8iGQA&m=4rPPeZYvTymLxsOfZSpRDgnJiJimC1Ps8_RLwyoagIw&s=5giKXGkMpuBhFjpCWR_xKE7z2iwpocXCwufDlZ1KpYg&e=>
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-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DMICE-2DDISCUSS-26A-3D1&d=DQMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=Q_d8tNiSzoBecM8os8iGQA&m=4rPPeZYvTymLxsOfZSpRDgnJiJimC1Ps8_RLwyoagIw&s=5giKXGkMpuBhFjpCWR_xKE7z2iwpocXCwufDlZ1KpYg&e=>
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-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DMICE-2DDISCUSS-26A-3D1&d=DQMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=Q_d8tNiSzoBecM8os8iGQA&m=4rPPeZYvTymLxsOfZSpRDgnJiJimC1Ps8_RLwyoagIw&s=5giKXGkMpuBhFjpCWR_xKE7z2iwpocXCwufDlZ1KpYg&e=>
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net<mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net> www.neutralpath.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neutralpath.net&d=DQ...> ________________________________ 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-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DMICE-2DDISCUSS-26A-3D1&d=DQMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=Q_d8tNiSzoBecM8os8iGQA&m=4rPPeZYvTymLxsOfZSpRDgnJiJimC1Ps8_RLwyoagIw&s=5giKXGkMpuBhFjpCWR_xKE7z2iwpocXCwufDlZ1KpYg&e=> ________________________________ 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-2Dbin_wa-3FSUBED1-3DMICE-2DDISCUSS-26A-3D1&d=DQMFaQ&c=96ZbZZcaMF4w0F4jpN6LZg&r=Q_d8tNiSzoBecM8os8iGQA&m=4rPPeZYvTymLxsOfZSpRDgnJiJimC1Ps8_RLwyoagIw&s=5giKXGkMpuBhFjpCWR_xKE7z2iwpocXCwufDlZ1KpYg&e=>
Just note: no DACs or optics, so no way to connect at 10gig unless someone brings some snacks -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:14 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants I will probably be there tomorrow to assist in the physical portion of the installation with Doug/Anthony. I volunteer to be the guinea pig, and test for loss prior to scheduling a maintenance window to cut over the other 1G members on. Jay, could you give us port assignments for the L2 link to the 4500s, and an IP for the new switch. Thanks, Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Ok, it's there. Firmwared (holy crap I forget the hell that is the time commitment to firmware ex4200) to as listed below and with c13/c14 cables and stacking cables. me0.0 is dhcp root is mice987z admin is mice987z ssh is on -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants 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@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@gmail.com
On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@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@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@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@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@mankatonetworks.net
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: 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@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@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@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@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
There is a handful of 10g LR SFP+ we donated that should be up there to use in the EX4500/4550 side for this. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa@gmail.com
On Sep 21, 2016, at 4:16 PM, Ryan Goldberg <RGoldberg@compudyne.com> wrote:
Just note: no DACs or optics, so no way to connect at 10gig unless someone brings some snacks
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:14 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
I will probably be there tomorrow to assist in the physical portion of the installation with Doug/Anthony. I volunteer to be the guinea pig, and test for loss prior to scheduling a maintenance window to cut over the other 1G members on.
Jay, could you give us port assignments for the L2 link to the 4500s, and an IP for the new switch.
Thanks, Jeremy
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
Ok, it's there. Firmwared (holy crap I forget the hell that is the time commitment to firmware ex4200) to as listed below and with c13/c14 cables and stacking cables.
me0.0 is dhcp
root is mice987z
admin is mice987z
ssh is on
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
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@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@gmail.com
On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@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@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@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@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@mankatonetworks.net
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: 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@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@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@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@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
I will bring some snacks -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:17 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Just note: no DACs or optics, so no way to connect at 10gig unless someone brings some snacks -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:14 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants I will probably be there tomorrow to assist in the physical portion of the installation with Doug/Anthony. I volunteer to be the guinea pig, and test for loss prior to scheduling a maintenance window to cut over the other 1G members on. Jay, could you give us port assignments for the L2 link to the 4500s, and an IP for the new switch. Thanks, Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Ok, it's there. Firmwared (holy crap I forget the hell that is the time commitment to firmware ex4200) to as listed below and with c13/c14 cables and stacking cables. me0.0 is dhcp root is mice987z admin is mice987z ssh is on -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants 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@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@gmail.com
On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@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@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@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@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@mankatonetworks.net
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: 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@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@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@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@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
Here is the IP: MICE Core 1G EX4200-24T 206.108.255.244/24 2001:504:27:0:0:D1AF::244/64 I believe this is LAG10 on the core side: xe-0/2/3 xe-2/0/16 On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Ryan Goldberg <RGoldberg@compudyne.com> wrote:
Just note: no DACs or optics, so no way to connect at 10gig unless someone brings some snacks
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:14 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
I will probably be there tomorrow to assist in the physical portion of the installation with Doug/Anthony. I volunteer to be the guinea pig, and test for loss prior to scheduling a maintenance window to cut over the other 1G members on.
Jay, could you give us port assignments for the L2 link to the 4500s, and an IP for the new switch.
Thanks, Jeremy
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
Ok, it's there. Firmwared (holy crap I forget the hell that is the time commitment to firmware ex4200) to as listed below and with c13/c14 cables and stacking cables.
me0.0 is dhcp
root is mice987z
admin is mice987z
ssh is on
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
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@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@gmail.com
On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@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@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@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@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@mankatonetworks.net
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: 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@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@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@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@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
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
Let's turn up as a LAG with only one of the two links active. Then activate the second link when we're good and ready. We could also move one of the route servers or maybe the looking glass over to the new switch. On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke@neutralpath.net> wrote:
Here is the IP:
MICE Core 1G EX4200-24T 206.108.255.244/24 2001:504:27:0:0:D1AF::244/64
I believe this is LAG10 on the core side: xe-0/2/3 xe-2/0/16
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Ryan Goldberg <RGoldberg@compudyne.com> wrote:
Just note: no DACs or optics, so no way to connect at 10gig unless someone brings some snacks
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:14 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
I will probably be there tomorrow to assist in the physical portion of the installation with Doug/Anthony. I volunteer to be the guinea pig, and test for loss prior to scheduling a maintenance window to cut over the other 1G members on.
Jay, could you give us port assignments for the L2 link to the 4500s, and an IP for the new switch.
Thanks, Jeremy
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
Ok, it's there. Firmwared (holy crap I forget the hell that is the time commitment to firmware ex4200) to as listed below and with c13/c14 cables and stacking cables.
me0.0 is dhcp
root is mice987z
admin is mice987z
ssh is on
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
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@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@gmail.com
On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@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@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@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@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@mankatonetworks.net
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: 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@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@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@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@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
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
I think moving the looking glass makes the most sense right now since it is not critical, and then we can move the route servers during an announced maintenance window. When we move forward with the maintenance window, do you think it makes sense to have one route server on the new 4200, and the other on the 4550 using an SPF to copper Ethernet converter? -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:30 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Let's turn up as a LAG with only one of the two links active. Then activate the second link when we're good and ready. We could also move one of the route servers or maybe the looking glass over to the new switch. On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke@neutralpath.net> wrote:
Here is the IP:
MICE Core 1G EX4200-24T 206.108.255.244/24 2001:504:27:0:0:D1AF::244/64
I believe this is LAG10 on the core side: xe-0/2/3 xe-2/0/16
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Ryan Goldberg <RGoldberg@compudyne.com> wrote:
Just note: no DACs or optics, so no way to connect at 10gig unless someone brings some snacks
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:14 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
I will probably be there tomorrow to assist in the physical portion of the installation with Doug/Anthony. I volunteer to be the guinea pig, and test for loss prior to scheduling a maintenance window to cut over the other 1G members on.
Jay, could you give us port assignments for the L2 link to the 4500s, and an IP for the new switch.
Thanks, Jeremy
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
Ok, it's there. Firmwared (holy crap I forget the hell that is the time commitment to firmware ex4200) to as listed below and with c13/c14 cables and stacking cables.
me0.0 is dhcp
root is mice987z
admin is mice987z
ssh is on
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
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@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@gmail.com
On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@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@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@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@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@mankatonetworks.net
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: 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@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@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@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@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
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:25:29PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote:
Here is the IP:
MICE Core 1G EX4200-24T 206.108.255.244/24 2001:504:27:0:0:D1AF::244/64
I believe this is LAG10 on the core side: xe-0/2/3 xe-2/0/16
The next LAG group is ae11. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn@iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
Who is 10? On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn@iphouse.net> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:25:29PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote:
Here is the IP:
MICE Core 1G EX4200-24T 206.108.255.244/24 2001:504:27:0:0:D1AF::244/64
I believe this is LAG10 on the core side: xe-0/2/3 xe-2/0/16
The next LAG group is ae11.
-- Doug McIntyre <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@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
According to the MICE participants page, ae10 is for Wikstrom Tel ________________________________________ From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Jason Hanke [jayhanke@NEUTRALPATH.NET] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:31 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Who is 10? On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn@iphouse.net> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:25:29PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote:
Here is the IP:
MICE Core 1G EX4200-24T 206.108.255.244/24 2001:504:27:0:0:D1AF::244/64
I believe this is LAG10 on the core side: xe-0/2/3 xe-2/0/16
The next LAG group is ae11.
-- Doug McIntyre <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@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
Last I have RIchard requested his port not be set up as a LAG. On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:34 PM, Justin Krejci <JKrejci@usinternet.com> wrote:
According to the MICE participants page, ae10 is for Wikstrom Tel
________________________________________ From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Jason Hanke [jayhanke@NEUTRALPATH.NET] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:31 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
Who is 10?
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:30 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn@iphouse.net> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:25:29PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote:
Here is the IP:
MICE Core 1G EX4200-24T 206.108.255.244/24 2001:504:27:0:0:D1AF::244/64
I believe this is LAG10 on the core side: xe-0/2/3 xe-2/0/16
The next LAG group is ae11.
-- Doug McIntyre <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@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:39:53PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote:
Last I have RIchard requested his port not be set up as a LAG.
He did ask me directly to do so, and I think there was something cc'd back to MICE-DISCUSS at the time. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn@iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades
This is what I have now (updated for Wikstrom Telephone) ae0 NorthernLights GigaPop ae1 Akamai ae2 Netflix ae3 Netflix ae4 Google ae5 CNS Remote Switch ae6 Hurricane Electric ae7 CloudFlare ae8 Airstream (WIN) ae9 Neutral Path Remote Swtich ae10 Wikstrom Telephone ae11 MICE Core 1G Switch On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn@iphouse.net> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 04:39:53PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote:
Last I have RIchard requested his port not be set up as a LAG.
He did ask me directly to do so, and I think there was something cc'd back to MICE-DISCUSS at the time.
-- Doug McIntyre <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@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
Jay, I am doing the physical install of the switch now, and I see 0/2/3 is in use. The cross connect/participants list shows Hoyos I see 0/0/1 is available, as well as 0/1/3, and 0/2/2 Jeremy. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:25 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Here is the IP: MICE Core 1G EX4200-24T 206.108.255.244/24 2001:504:27:0:0:D1AF::244/64 I believe this is LAG10 on the core side: xe-0/2/3 xe-2/0/16 On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Ryan Goldberg <RGoldberg@compudyne.com> wrote:
Just note: no DACs or optics, so no way to connect at 10gig unless someone brings some snacks
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:14 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
I will probably be there tomorrow to assist in the physical portion of the installation with Doug/Anthony. I volunteer to be the guinea pig, and test for loss prior to scheduling a maintenance window to cut over the other 1G members on.
Jay, could you give us port assignments for the L2 link to the 4500s, and an IP for the new switch.
Thanks, Jeremy
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
Ok, it's there. Firmwared (holy crap I forget the hell that is the time commitment to firmware ex4200) to as listed below and with c13/c14 cables and stacking cables.
me0.0 is dhcp
root is mice987z
admin is mice987z
ssh is on
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
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@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@gmail.com
On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@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@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@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@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@mankatonetworks.net
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: 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@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@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@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@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
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
Sorry, I mistyped should be 0/2/2 On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
Jay,
I am doing the physical install of the switch now, and I see 0/2/3 is in use. The cross connect/participants list shows Hoyos I see 0/0/1 is available, as well as 0/1/3, and 0/2/2
Jeremy.
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:25 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
Here is the IP:
MICE Core 1G EX4200-24T 206.108.255.244/24 2001:504:27:0:0:D1AF::244/64
I believe this is LAG10 on the core side: xe-0/2/3 xe-2/0/16
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Ryan Goldberg <RGoldberg@compudyne.com> wrote:
Just note: no DACs or optics, so no way to connect at 10gig unless someone brings some snacks
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:14 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
I will probably be there tomorrow to assist in the physical portion of the installation with Doug/Anthony. I volunteer to be the guinea pig, and test for loss prior to scheduling a maintenance window to cut over the other 1G members on.
Jay, could you give us port assignments for the L2 link to the 4500s, and an IP for the new switch.
Thanks, Jeremy
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
Ok, it's there. Firmwared (holy crap I forget the hell that is the time commitment to firmware ex4200) to as listed below and with c13/c14 cables and stacking cables.
me0.0 is dhcp
root is mice987z
admin is mice987z
ssh is on
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
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@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@gmail.com
On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@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@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@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@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@mankatonetworks.net
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <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@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@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@MNVOIP.COM> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM To: 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] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM To: 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@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@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@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@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
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby@mnvoip.com
Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this. Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down their sessions in advance if they prefer. I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity Telephone) to the 4550? ~Matthew On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one.
Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby@mnvoip.com
No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g... On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb@AITECH.NET<mailto:matthewb@aitech.net>> wrote: Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this. Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down their sessions in advance if they prefer. I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity Telephone) to the 4550? ~Matthew On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby@mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
Jay, Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, can you post the maintenance to the Announce list? Jeremy From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:07 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g... On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb@AITECH.NET> wrote: Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this. Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down their sessions in advance if they prefer. I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity Telephone) to the 4550? ~Matthew On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote: As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby@mnvoip.com To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
What is the plan with the old 4200? On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
Jay,
Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, can you post the maintenance to the Announce list?
Jeremy
From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:07 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g...
On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb@AITECH.NET> wrote:
Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this.
Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down their sessions in advance if they prefer.
I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity Telephone) to the 4550?
~Matthew
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one.
Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby@mnvoip.com
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
Eventually I would like to stack it with the new 4200, however I do not want to immediately since there is a possibility that one of its stacking cables, or interfaces have an issue, and therefore I would like to run clean for a while before we add it into the mix. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:27 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants What is the plan with the old 4200? On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
Jay,
Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, can you post the maintenance to the Announce list?
Jeremy
From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:07 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g...
On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb@AITECH.NET> wrote:
Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this.
Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down their sessions in advance if they prefer.
I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity Telephone) to the 4550?
~Matthew
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one.
Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby@mnvoip.com
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
Do we have a copper SFP for the Route Server connection? On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
Jay,
Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, can you post the maintenance to the Announce list?
Jeremy
From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:07 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g...
On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb@AITECH.NET> wrote:
Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this.
Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down their sessions in advance if they prefer.
I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity Telephone) to the 4550?
~Matthew
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one.
Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby@mnvoip.com
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
I will donate one -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 3:33 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Do we have a copper SFP for the Route Server connection? On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
Jay,
Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, can you post the maintenance to the Announce list?
Jeremy
From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:07 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g...
On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb@AITECH.NET> wrote:
Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this.
Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down their sessions in advance if they prefer.
I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity Telephone) to the 4550?
~Matthew
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one.
Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby@mnvoip.com
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
Please allocate ge-2/0/0 to route server 2. There is no change in IP address. I'm blocked from announce. Can someone else get the notification together for the announce list? On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 3:41 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
I will donate one
-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 3:33 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
Do we have a copper SFP for the Route Server connection?
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
Jay,
Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, can you post the maintenance to the Announce list?
Jeremy
From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 11:07 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants
No sfp slots available on the 4200. It can only run the two 10g...
On Sep 29, 2016, at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb@AITECH.NET> wrote:
Jeremy, Thanks for your efforts on this.
Personally, i'm fine with next Tuesday afternoon. I think the general consensus was mid-day maintenance is fine, provided we send out something to MICE-ANNOUNCE (probably by the end of the day today) so people can shut down their sessions in advance if they prefer.
I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity Telephone) to the 4550?
~Matthew
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
As many of you know after Tuesday's meeting, I moved my connection over to the new 4200 that was donated by Compudyne. The topology is that the existing three switches are connected together in a ring with Juniper stacking cables, and then the new 4200 that I am testing has 2 10G ports lagged to the existing switches, one of which goes to the 4500, and the other goes to the 4550. When I initially connected, I was seeing loss to all three of the older switches. The loss was 0.4% to the 4500, and 0.2% to the 4200, and the 4550. I then shutdown the LAG port that ran between the 4550, and the new 4200. The new loss numbers over a 6 hour period came back as 0% to the 4500 and 4200, and 0.2% to the 4550. I then switched it so that only the port to the 4550 was active in the LAG group, and the loss changed to 0.3% to the 4500, 0.2% to the 4200, and 0% to the 4550. I believe this clearly points to the loss being in the stacking of the existing switches. My suggested next step would be to schedule a maintenance window where the existing members are moved from the old 4200 to the new one, and the LAG port from the new 4200 to the 4550 is left shutdown. This will enable the existing 4200 users to experience less loss, while we can see if removing the old 4200, and associated stacking cables has removed the loss from the existing stack. Because of my limited availability I am proposing doing the maintenance next Tuesday afternoon. Let me know if this works, or if someone else with better availability would rather do it. It should only briefly effect the 1G members, and not the 10G users. I plan on moving the route servers one at a time leaving plenty of time for BGP to re-establish prior to moving the second one.
Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby@mnvoip.com
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
________________________________
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
-- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke@neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 03:45:55PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote:
Please allocate ge-2/0/0 to route server 2. There is no change in IP address.
I'm blocked from announce. Can someone else get the notification together for the announce list?
I can do that. What time Tuesday afternoon? -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau@Geeks.ORG
2PM -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Mike Horwath Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 9:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 03:45:55PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote:
Please allocate ge-2/0/0 to route server 2. There is no change in IP address.
I'm blocked from announce. Can someone else get the notification together for the announce list?
I can do that. What time Tuesday afternoon? -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau@Geeks.ORG
Just to update everyone after yesterday's maintenance. After removing the 4200 from the virtual chassis, unfortunately I am still seeing loss when packets go between the 4500, and the 4550. The good news is removing the 4200 has improved it since the loss is now down to 0.06% on a 6 hour test (previously it was around 0.3%), unfortunately I am 100% sure it is real since I can shut down 1 of the two LAG ports at a time from the 4200, and the loss to the switch with the active lag port is always truly 0, and the other switch is 0.06% When I flip which port on the LAG is shutdown, then the loss flips to the other switch exactly as expected. For the time being, I am going to leave only the connection from the 4200 to the 4500 active since it has the most members, and therefore will show the least overall loss, while we determine our next step in troubleshooting this issue. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby@mnvoip.com
Just to confirm...what port(s) are active right now for the new LAG at the moment? I'm currently getting >1% loss from the "new" 4200 (ge-0/0/15) over to USI on the 4500 (xe-0/0/14). I thought I ran the same test yesterday afternoon with no loss.. ~Matthew On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote:
For the time being, I am going to leave only the connection from the 4200 to the 4500 active since it has the most members, and therefore will show the least overall loss, while we determine our next step in troubleshooting this issue.
As of 7:30AM, we are back to how we were yesterday afternoon. If you want to see the exact times I made the switch, both ports are graphed individually on http://micelg.usinternet.com/ on the last page of the copper switch graphs. I am not showing any loss to my USI customer since I made the switch back this morning (however I was prior to 7:30AM). From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Matthew Beckwell Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 9:38 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Just to confirm...what port(s) are active right now for the new LAG at the moment? I'm currently getting >1% loss from the "new" 4200 (ge-0/0/15) over to USI on the 4500 (xe-0/0/14). I thought I ran the same test yesterday afternoon with no loss.. ~Matthew On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby@mnvoip.com> wrote: For the time being, I am going to leave only the connection from the 4200 to the 4500 active since it has the most members, and therefore will show the least overall loss, while we determine our next step in troubleshooting this issue. To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
I'm assuming these are named "ge-0/0/X", for X in 0 to 23 inclusive; is that correct? Jeremy, which port are you (well, Minnesota VoIP) using on the new switch? What are the port names of two 10G uplinks on the new switch? Of those, which 10G port on the new switch is connected to xe-0/2/2 in the core stack and which is connected to xe-2/0/16? What is the name of the LAG on the new EX4200-24T switch (the other side of ae11 on the core stack)? Is it ae0? -- Richard
On the new 4200 side ae0 is made up of xe-0/1/0 and xe-0/1/2 On the existing stack ae11 is made up of xe-0/2/2 and xe-2/0/16 xe-0/1/0 is connected to xe-0/2/2 and xe-0/1/2 is connected to xe-2/0/16 via 10G DAC cables (which I donated) With the exception of the 4 SFP ports and route server #2 that Jay mentioned, all moves will be to the same numbered port on the switch. In the old stack, they are all ge-1/0/x, and on the new 4200, they will all be ge-0/0/x I will keep the x the same so I moved my port from ge-1/0/11 to ge-0/0/11 and the looking glass has also been moved to ge-0/0/0 All other moves will happen during the Tuesday afternoon maintenance window. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 8:59 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants I'm assuming these are named "ge-0/0/X", for X in 0 to 23 inclusive; is that correct? Jeremy, which port are you (well, Minnesota VoIP) using on the new switch? What are the port names of two 10G uplinks on the new switch? Of those, which 10G port on the new switch is connected to xe-0/2/2 in the core stack and which is connected to xe-2/0/16? What is the name of the LAG on the new EX4200-24T switch (the other side of ae11 on the core stack)? Is it ae0? -- Richard
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 09:34:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote:
All other moves will happen during the Tuesday afternoon maintenance window.
When? 1200-1700? (trolling for someone to commit to a time so I can get the announcement posted) -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau@Geeks.ORG
On 09/29/2016 09:34 PM, Jeremy Lumby wrote:
On the new 4200 side ae0 is made up of xe-0/1/0 and xe-0/1/2 On the existing stack ae11 is made up of xe-0/2/2 and xe-2/0/16 xe-0/1/0 is connected to xe-0/2/2 and xe-0/1/2 is connected to xe-2/0/16 via 10G DAC cables (which I donated) With the exception of the 4 SFP ports and route server #2 that Jay mentioned, all moves will be to the same numbered port on the switch. In the old stack, they are all ge-1/0/x, and on the new 4200, they will all be ge-0/0/x I will keep the x the same so I moved my port from ge-1/0/11 to ge-0/0/11 and the looking glass has also been moved to ge-0/0/0 All other moves will happen during the Tuesday afternoon maintenance window.
Thanks! I've updated the website. And thanks for the donation of the DAC cables! -- Richard
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 11:15:00AM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote:
Jay,
Can we get new port assignments for the 4 1G optical ports on the 4200 to move them to the 4550. Also I would propose plugging one of the route servers into the 4500 to spread them across 2 stacks, so if you agree, please assign a port for that as well. Also if you have permission, can you post the maintenance to the Announce list?
I'll need to do some maintenance on the list configuration with the loss of Shaun. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau@Geeks.ORG
IIRC, we (ClaimLynx) were previously on the 4550, and moved to the 4200 to free up 10GE ports. We're content to be moved wherever is convenient for the exchange (we briefly discussed moving us to the CNS switch). On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb@aitech.net> wrote:
I don't remember...did we decide if we're moving the 1G Optical folks on the existing 4200 expansion module (5 Nines, ClaimLynx, CDW/Berbee, Velocity Telephone) to the 4550?
-- Thomas Johnson ClaimLynx, Inc. 952-593-5969 x2302 -- This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please contact the sender or call ClaimLynx at (952) 593-5969.
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@Geeks.ORG
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@Geeks.ORG
All, Never said it was impossible. But more cumbersome. Cheers, *Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson@mankatonetworks.net On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau@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@Geeks.ORG
Thanks Steve, I haven't done much with iperf3-- it looks like they took away the dual-test option, so I'm a little blind. Are you able to see loss on the iperf3 server side from 199.168.228.123 ? ~Matthew On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Steve Howard <showard@paulbunyan.net> wrote:
We've opened up our iperf3 server on 209.191.196.90 for a few hours.
------------------------------
10M UDP testing to Steve's network at Paul Bunyan (egress ae5), doesn't appear to have any loss. The same 10M UDP test to US Internet, egress xe-0/0/14 shows about 3-5% loss. Again, same 10M UDP test to the same US Internet destination IP forced out another transit provider shows 0 loss. This is certainly interesting....I'm not sure what's special about xe-0/0/14 vs ae5. Some kind of buffer or queue difference? ~Matthew On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Steve Howard <showard@paulbunyan.net> wrote:
On 09/19/2016 01:49 PM, Matthew Beckwell wrote:
As to whether there's loss to one of the "remote" switches, I'm not sure.... If one of the Neutral Path/Mankato Networks/ CNS connected participants would be up for running iperf for a little while, we could find out fairly quickly.
We've opened up our iperf3 server on 209.191.196.90 for a few hours.
One interesting thing that might be playing into it is that ae5 is split across both the 4500, and the 4550. I wonder if the issue is only when traffic goes from the 4200 to the 4500, and not the 4200 to the 4550. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Matthew Beckwell Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 3:30 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants 10M UDP testing to Steve's network at Paul Bunyan (egress ae5), doesn't appear to have any loss. The same 10M UDP test to US Internet, egress xe-0/0/14 shows about 3-5% loss. Again, same 10M UDP test to the same US Internet destination IP forced out another transit provider shows 0 loss. This is certainly interesting....I'm not sure what's special about xe-0/0/14 vs ae5. Some kind of buffer or queue difference? ~Matthew On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Steve Howard <showard@paulbunyan.net> wrote: On 09/19/2016 01:49 PM, Matthew Beckwell wrote: As to whether there's loss to one of the "remote" switches, I'm not sure.... If one of the Neutral Path/Mankato Networks/ CNS connected participants would be up for running iperf for a little while, we could find out fairly quickly. We've opened up our iperf3 server on 209.191.196.90 for a few hours. To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
On Sep 19, 2016, at 3:29 PM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb@aitech.net> wrote:
This is certainly interesting....I'm not sure what's special about xe-0/0/14 vs ae5. Some kind of buffer or queue difference?
IIRC on the 4500, there is a PFE mapped to ports 0-19 and another PFE handling 20-39, with 200gbps between. AE5 appears to be built (from the website) out of xe-0/0/29,xe-0/0/38,xe-2/0/15. How that hashing played out for your test and which link it actually took, who knows. Either way, could be a 4500 only thing, or PFE cross traffic related. Seems like it might be a good idea to simplify that topology if possible (given the mixed mode behavior already). -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa@gmail.com
participants (15)
-
Andrew Hoyos -
Ben Wiechman -
Chase Rydberg -
DeLong, Owen -
Doug McIntyre -
Jason Hanke -
Jeremy Lumby -
Justin Krejci -
Levi Pederson -
Matthew Beckwell -
Mike Horwath -
Richard Laager -
Ryan Goldberg -
Steve Howard -
Thomas Johnson