 |
 |
Just a suggestion: would it make more sense for each of the folks providing space/power for the switches to provide a /29 or /31 for OOB management, rather than inband management within the MICE subnet? That way, it's kinda separated, and nobody has to worry about static routing stuff different places, or distributing the IX subnet itself. IX subnet = IX participant routers only then On Jan 10, 2012, at 3:12 PM, Justin Krejci wrote: > Yeah, looks like the MICE subnet got whacked out of the routing table. Temporarily I've added a static route on the router the micelg server is using for its gateway and it appears it has fully restore connectivity now as I can ping the cns switch from the server. > > > On Tue, 2012-01-10 at 11:48 -0600, Jay Hanke wrote: >> >> There hasn't been any change at ipHouse that would account for any >> >> routing change. I can still ping the switch at 69.147.218.253 from >> >> ipHouse. >> >> Two ideas: >> >> 1) Wasn't one of the akamai routing changes done in a about the same time? >> 2) From the USI perspective, what path are you following towards the >> MICE subnet? >> >> Jay >> >> ######################################################################## >> >> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >> >> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- Andrew Hoyos [log in to unmask] ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1