 |
 |
I'd agree. I've posted this a few times before, but AMS-IX has an *excellent* guide on how to properly configure your ports facing the IX (both in routed port or layer2 port scenario). https://www.ams-ix.net/config-guide/ Spanning tree interaction between the IX and members is just a recipe for disaster. I think if everyone takes a few minutes to review that and properly configure ports, most of these concerns would be alleviated. Thanks! Andrew -- Andrew Hoyos Hoyos Consulting LLC ofc: +1 608 616 9950 [log in to unmask] http://www.hoyosconsulting.com/ On Feb 20, 2014, at 1:59 PM, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > I think we should revisit the topic of how to better protect MICE from these Layer 2 issues that we have had a few of in the history of MICE. I feel that stability is extremely important, especially when it comes to attracting new members, as well as getting existing members to increase their capacity. I know that many of the Layer 2 security measures that are possible for the exchange increase the amount of administrative time that needs to be put into the exchange, however I feel it may be very well worth the extra work when adding/maintaining members' connections > > I was looking through my log files, and during the outage, I saw a bunch of entries stating: > %IPV6-3-CONFLICT: Router FE80::21D:71FF:FE98:74C0 on GigabitEthernet0/2 has conflicting ND settings > I am not very familiar with this error, and not sure if it was just as a result of the degraded conditions on MICE, or if it had something to do with the cause. > > Jeremy > > ######################################################################## > > 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