 |
 |
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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:30 PM To: [log in to unmask] 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby >> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:14 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> 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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg >> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:07 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> 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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ryan Goldberg >> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:06 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> 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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos >> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 12:05 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> 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 >> [log in to unmask] >> >> >> >>> On Sep 21, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jeremy Lumby <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>> Probably makes sense to match the current version on the other >>> switches of 12.3R9-S1 >>> >>> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf >>> Of Ryan Goldberg >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 11:58 AM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> 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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf >>> Of Ryan Goldberg >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:38 AM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> 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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf >>> Of Levi Pederson >>> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:28 AM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> 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 >>> [log in to unmask] >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 10:04 PM, Ben Wiechman <[log in to unmask]> 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" <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of >>> Jeremy Lumby <[log in to unmask]> >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:45 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G >>> Participants >>> >>> I am in favor, THANKS GUYS!!! >>> >>> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf >>> Of Jason Hanke >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:41 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> 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 <[log in to unmask]> 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:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf >>> Of Doug McIntyre >>> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:15 PM >>> To: [log in to unmask] >>> 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 <[log in to unmask]> >>> ~.~ 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 >>> [log in to unmask] >>> 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 > [log in to unmask] > www.neutralpath.net -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile [log in to unmask] www.neutralpath.net