 |
 |
I have similar concerns as Andrew. However, I'm cognizant of Jeremy's concerns as well. Nevertheless, if we are going to fix our old problems, we have to be willing to accept that we are likely to create other new problems. The hard part is deciding if the old problems, the known problems, are worse than the potential new problems, the potentially unknown problems, and which of the potentially new problems we are willing to accept. We seem to have a consensus that this particular old problem needs to be addressed; what is not clear is if we have a consensus on accepting the potential new problems and which of those potential problems we are willing to accept. Note either way we are accepting new problems; we are either accepting potential new problems caused by the automation of IX Manager. Otherwise, we are accepting the potential new problems caused by a static MAC ACL list with only manual changes; I expect delays in changes primarily. Both options are going to produce problems. And if they are delays impacting one of the large content peers they could have as significant of an impact as the original problem we are trying to solve. Thanks On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 9:02 AM Andrew Hoyos <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I disagree with static MAC address filtering unless we beef up operational > ability to change/adjust in a reasonable timeframe, or offer a self service > portal to do so (ie IXP Manager implementation first) > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 31, 2022, at 9:59 PM, Steve Howard <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Below is a message indicating the current policy as decided by the MICE > Board in December 2019 is that the MAC address limit is 1. > > > The subject of Jay's message indicates "Static" MAC, but, the text seems > to indicate a limit of 1. I like the 1 address limit, but, am not a fan of > Static. Was the current issue caused by somebody not having a proper MAC > address limit installed? > > > On 12/13/19 18:00, Richard Laager wrote: > > The board has approved the change in MAC address limit from 5 to 1. > > NOTE: This is orthogonal to the dedicated remote switch question, which > is still pending. Non-dedicated remote switches can, for example, > enforce this per-VLAN. > > We have already confirmed that most participants are using only 1 MAC > address, and some that were using more than 1 have addressed that after > being contacted. As discussed below, this change will be rolled out in a > way to keep everyone working, by grandfathering if necessary. > > On 10/28/19 3:25 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > We have discussed this a bit in the past, and this came up at the last > UG. I'm looking for feedback from the group before formally proposing > this to the board for a vote. > > I first brought this up to the technical committee, CCing the board. I > have heard no objections. Jeremy is "in favor of it 100%". > > Based on our quick conversation after the UG, I _think_ Anthony is in > favor as well; we both made notes to follow up on this. > > ----- > > I am proposing that MICE change its MAC address limit from 5 MACs per > port to 1 MAC per port. 1 MAC address is enough for normal scenarios and > this would further limit the potential for problems on the fabric. This > restriction is one that SIX and AMS-IX both have, with the latter being > known for their excellent configuration guide for participants:https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/documentation/config-guide > > To be clear, this is still only for end ports, not ports facing remote > switches, of course. The remote switches are responsible for enforcing > the current MAC limit, and would be responsible for changing those > settings as described here. > > If someone is swapping their MICE-facing router, the resulting port flap > on the MICE/remote switch will clear the limit anyway, if they are > directly connected. If they are unable to flap the port (e.g. because > they have someone else's layer 2 gear in the middle), they will have to > either work with that carrier or their switch operator (MICE/remote) to > flap the port. This is a non-zero burden, but I think it's pretty > minimal in practice. Additionally, if someone plans to make an equipment > swap, we would increase the limit in advance, temporarily, upon request. > > For reference, SIX goes further and locks you to a particular MAC > address in an ACL, so you have to contact them to change your MAC. I am > not proposing that. Still, I've been through that a couple of times, and > even that isn't really too big of a deal. So I don't think the change to > a limit of 1 MAC at MICE will be particularly onerous. > > There are a couple of participants who have two IP address sets (one > IPv4 and one IPv6) on the same port. For those ports, the limit > obviously must be at least 2 MACs, but I propose 3 MACs as the limit. If > they're using two IPs, they probably are doing so to get some redundancy > out of it. For this particular use case, needing to flap the port > defeats that redundancy goal, as it breaks the other router. Having a > MAC limit of 3 would allow them to swap a device without needing to flap > the port. We would grandfather these setups until they are looking for a > port-type upgrade; at that point they would need to get to one IP > address set per port (by splitting into two ports or reducing to one IP > address set) or request an exception as outlined below. The exception > process would allow us to better evaluate this use case at that time. > > There are some members who have multiple MACs showing up now, despite > using only one device. For those, I am proposing we set the MAC limit to > however many MACs are currently showing up on their port. That is, they > would be grandfathered at their current situation for now. At the time > of this change, we would encourage them to investigate and fix the > multiple MACs issue at their leisure. In the future, if they are doing a > equipment swap (especially like-for-like), we would again encourage them > to address it, but would otherwise leave their higher limit in place. If > they do a port-type upgrade, we would not bring the grandfathering over. > If they needed, they could ask for an official exception at that time. > > There may be cases where people cannot reasonably fix their routers to > use only 1 MAC, other scenarios I haven't considered, or things that may > come up in the future. For that reason, I think we should allow for the > possibility of exceptions upon request to the board. In practice, I > would expect the board would confer with the technical committee and/or > the technical committee would be bringing these to the board anyway. The > goal is to strike a reasonable balance between protecting the fabric > without preventing networks from connecting. > > > > > > On 10/31/22 08:27, Jay Hanke wrote: > > I propose we change the MICE required port security settings to be > hard filtered for a single static mac address per port. > > Over the years, we've had several incidents where floods have occurred > prior to port being error-disabled during a looping event. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[log in to unmask] Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================