- NZNOG - lists.nznog.org

Re: [nznog] Appeal to bigger brains
by Andrew McBeath 08 Sep '15

08 Sep '15

Thanks to everyone who offered advice - turns out the IBM server connect module in bay 2 of the chassis was the issue. Removing it from the chassis resolved all problems. It had nothing connected to it and all ports were disabled so I can only guess that its faulty. Thanks again, Andrew From: Andrew McBeath Sent: Tuesday, 8 September 2015 9:53 p.m. To: 'nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz' <nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> Subject: Appeal to bigger brains I'm throwing this out there because I'm at a loss to figure out whats happening in our lab. I realise it's a bit outside the scope of this forum but as the subject line says I'm looking for some bigger brains - Beers are involved. We have an IBM blade chassis - only 4 blades at present - with a management VLAN 50 (192.168.10.0/24) and a data vlan 100 (10.10.10.10.0/24) hooked up to our prod network (10.10.1.0 and 11.11.1.0 -Yes I know this is BAD but I inherited the network and haven't been able to change it as yet) via a juniper SRX. Blades are running VMware 5.5 - no nic teaming as yet. All blades and AMM module (all on 192.168.10 addresses) can get to all parts of the network VMWare machine (Only one so far - on 10.10.10.0 network - can ping host, can ping external firewall, CAN ONLY PING ODD OR EVEN NUMBERED IP's DEPENDING ON WETHER IT HAS AN ODD\EVEN IP) ie if its forth octet is .125 it can ping .1, .3, .5 but if I change it to .126 it can only ping .2, .4, .6 Everything I've found online points to NIC teams in certain situations but none apply as the blades only have a single NIC enabled and the VM only has one NIC assigned. Appreciate any feedback Cheers, Andrew McBeath

1 0

Appeal to bigger brains
by Andrew McBeath 08 Sep '15

08 Sep '15

I'm throwing this out there because I'm at a loss to figure out whats happening in our lab. I realise it's a bit outside the scope of this forum but as the subject line says I'm looking for some bigger brains - Beers are involved. We have an IBM blade chassis - only 4 blades at present - with a management VLAN 50 (192.168.10.0/24) and a data vlan 100 (10.10.10.10.0/24) hooked up to our prod network (10.10.1.0 and 11.11.1.0 -Yes I know this is BAD but I inherited the network and haven't been able to change it as yet) via a juniper SRX. Blades are running VMware 5.5 - no nic teaming as yet. All blades and AMM module (all on 192.168.10 addresses) can get to all parts of the network VMWare machine (Only one so far - on 10.10.10.0 network - can ping host, can ping external firewall, CAN ONLY PING ODD OR EVEN NUMBERED IP's DEPENDING ON WETHER IT HAS AN ODD\EVEN IP) ie if its forth octet is .125 it can ping .1, .3, .5 but if I change it to .126 it can only ping .2, .4, .6 Everything I've found online points to NIC teams in certain situations but none apply as the blades only have a single NIC enabled and the VM only has one NIC assigned. Appreciate any feedback Cheers, Andrew McBeath

4 5

Re: [nznog] Appeal to bigger brains
by Scott Weeks 08 Sep '15

08 Sep '15

--- andrew(a)base-2.co.nz wrote: From: Andrew McBeath <andrew(a)base-2.co.nz> VMWare machine (Only one so far - on 10.10.10.0 network - can ping host, can ping external firewall, CAN ONLY PING ODD OR EVEN NUMBERED IP's DEPENDING ON WETHER IT HAS AN ODD\EVEN IP) ie if its forth octet is .125 it can ping .1, .3, .5 but if I change it to .126 it can only ping .2, .4, .6 ---------------------------------------- It's a longshot, but is there VRRP/HSRP on the router where the default gateways point to? They could have two VRRP sessions and forcing odd IPs to one and even IPs to another. scott _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

1 0

FW: Appeal to bigger brains
by Andrew McBeath 07 Sep '15

07 Sep '15

Didn’t hit reply all. From: Andrew McBeath Sent: Tuesday, 8 September 2015 10:19 p.m. To: 'Alexander Neilson' <alexander(a)neilson.net.nz> Subject: RE: [nznog] Appeal to bigger brains Thanks Alexander, Its an E1000e with vmware tools installed – I have seen quirky behaviour from them before but it seems to have been much better of late. I will try ripping it out and assigning a VMXNET3 adapter. In response to earlier replies. Kyle -No LACP – single uplink from the blade IO module to a single EX2200 Dylan/Liam – Exactly my first thoughts but 2 of us have been through every bit of kit between the VM and the rest of the network trying to spot what the other missed and are both at a loss. It’s not a complicated network. Will update tomorrow after I change the NIC. Appreciate the feedback – Glad to know it strikes others as odd too Andrew From: Alexander Neilson [mailto:alexander(a)neilson.net.nz] Sent: Tuesday, 8 September 2015 10:05 p.m. To: Andrew McBeath <andrew(a)base-2.co.nz<mailto:andrew(a)base-2.co.nz>> Subject: Re: [nznog] Appeal to bigger brains Which network interface type is on each VM Guest? (or is your issue with the host?) VMXNET3 is recommended however you probably need VMWare tools installed to use it. The E1000 and E1000e interfaces have some weird issues in network operation but not that I have seen as even and odd interfaces. On your network configuration in VMWare how many underlying interfaces are assigned to each V Switch? can you screenshot the V switches and the individual network config screens under properties. Sounds like their might be some odd check box or interface involvement that causes this issue. Regards Alexander On 8/09/2015, at 9:53 PM, Andrew McBeath <andrew(a)base-2.co.nz<mailto:andrew(a)base-2.co.nz>> wrote: I’m throwing this out there because I’m at a loss to figure out whats happening in our lab. I realise it’s a bit outside the scope of this forum but as the subject line says I’m looking for some bigger brains – Beers are involved. We have an IBM blade chassis – only 4 blades at present – with a management VLAN 50 (192.168.10.0/24) and a data vlan 100 (10.10.10.10.0/24) hooked up to our prod network (10.10.1.0 and 11.11.1.0 –Yes I know this is BAD but I inherited the network and haven’t been able to change it as yet) via a juniper SRX. Blades are running VMware 5.5 - no nic teaming as yet. All blades and AMM module (all on 192.168.10 addresses) can get to all parts of the network VMWare machine (Only one so far – on 10.10.10.0 network - can ping host, can ping external firewall, CAN ONLY PING ODD OR EVEN NUMBERED IP’s DEPENDING ON WETHER IT HAS AN ODD\EVEN IP) ie if its forth octet is .125 it can ping .1, .3, .5 but if I change it to .126 it can only ping .2, .4, .6 Everything I’ve found online points to NIC teams in certain situations but none apply as the blades only have a single NIC enabled and the VM only has one NIC assigned. Appreciate any feedback Cheers, Andrew McBeath _______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz<mailto:NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz> http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog

1 0

Software defined networking seminar in Auckland (28th September - 10:30am-12:30pm)
by Ian Welch 07 Sep '15

07 Sep '15

Hi all, Victoria University is running a free seminar on software defined networking in Auckland on the 28th September from 10:30-12:30 at the Victoria University Auckland Office, Level 4, the Chancery, 50 Kitchener Street, Auckland. Bryan Ng will be doing a gentle introduction to SDN and leading a hands-on session. More information is available here: http://sdn-vuw.blogspot.co.nz/2015/09/come-to-our-auckland-event-at-end-of.… RSVP by Wednesday 23 September to suzan.hall(a)vuw.ac.nz with ‘SDN seminar’ in the subject line. We also have some scholarship opportunities for Masters projects on software defined networking topics, more information here: http://sdn-vuw.blogspot.co.nz/2015/08/scholarships-available-to-work-on.html Thanks, Ian

1 0

Contribution for the IANA Stewardship Transition proposal
by Elly Tawhai 07 Sep '15

07 Sep '15

Hi NZNOG Community, The Numbers community is one of the key operational communities called on to develop its own proposal for the IANA stewardship transition. The below video relates to IANA Stewardship Transition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-x2nQxyDrU How you can contribute: ----------------------- 1. The CRISP team is seeking community response to its statement on the ICG plan, as announced at: https://www.nro.net/pipermail/ianaxfer/2015-August/000642.html The CRISP statement provides an excellent summary of the ICG proposal and how it satisfies the expectations expressed by the Numbers community. 2. The NRO has also recently called for community support of the ICG proposals, at: https://www.nro.net/news/iana-stewardship-transition-coordination-group-icg… 3. We encourage you to send an email to the ICG (public-comments(a)ianacg.org) to express your support for the ICG’s transition proposal. Kind regards, Elly APNIC

2 1

SDN APE, and IX stats from Citylink
by Tim Hoffman 03 Sep '15

03 Sep '15

Greetings, There was some discussion over the last couple of years with the NZNOG community at conferences and on the mailing list about Citylink doing a SDN based IX. This was to include with it Citylink releasing statistics of the aggregated traffic over their IX - a measure (published by most IXs) that many use to decide if it's worth connecting to an IX. Given the public nature of this discussion so far, and the fact that it's died off, can a representative of Citylink please confirm to the list; 1/ Is there an intention to move to some sort of SDN driven IX still, and if so what the timeframe for this will be? If this project has been abandoned, how will the IXs be developed in place of this project? 2/ Do they have any intention to publish an aggregated traffic on their IXs, and if so what the timeframe for this will be? I am sure many of us in the peering community will be eager to hear the answers to these questions.... Cheers, Hoff

12 21

APNIC Policy Proposal 114
by Jamie Baddeley 03 Sep '15

03 Sep '15

Folks, Saw this: https://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-114 Whilst the proposal does its best to outline pros and cons, I feel that from a policy perspective it removes the direct incentive to establish interconnectivity with IXP's (or some other mechanism for Multihoming). You gain an ASN but you are not compelled to increase the resilience of the Internet. To me that is a disadvantage that has not been stated. To me, having a network with an ASN means fundamentally you are participating in the mesh. On the solution: An organisation is eligible for an ASN assignment if: - they are currently multi-homed, OR - have previous allocated provider independent address space by APNIC, AND intend to multi-home in the future It seems to suggest a policy tilted towards incumbents or those who've been around long enough to have some PI space? The problem statement: The policy seems to imply that both requirements i.e. multi-homing and clearly defined single routing policy must be met simultaneously, this has created much confusion in interpreting the policy. Suggests that removing the confusing or conflicting elements of the current policy is wise, but I'm not convinced the proposed solution does that without undermining what I think is a important characteristic of the Internet which is a highly interconnected mesh. As an alternate, is it not better to strengthen the process to determine whether the applicant did indeed multi-home? There are downsides in that of course. It does place overhead on an entity to test that but what matters more? Ease of access into the ASN club or ensuring high levels of interconnectivity? What do others think? jamie

3 2

Routing changes for AS17746 (Orcon)
by Simon Allard 02 Sep '15

02 Sep '15

Hi NZNog Thursday 3rd Sept 00:00 -> 0600 we will be making some changes to the way AS17746 Peers. Currently AS17746 has APE/WIX Peering. We decommissioning AS17746 APE peering and advertising AS17746 via Callplus AS9790. Orcons WIX peering will eventually become AS9790 but that’s a few weeks off yet but for the mean time we will prepend AS paths to make the AS paths equal. AS9790 Peers at APE/AKL-IX and Megaport, so there will be increased peering traffic and prefixes due to the extra routes in AKL-IX and Megaport. Any questions please drop me an email Cheers, Si [cid:imagea22279.PNG(a)4001d0ff.41a0d19e] Simon Allard // Senior Network Architect D: 09 550 2790 M: 020 100 0790 F: www.callplus.co.nz<http://www.callplus.co.nz> | www.slingshot.co.nz<http://www.slingshot.co.nz> | www.flip.co.nz<http://www.flip.co.nz> | www.orcon.net.nz<http://www.orcon.net.nz> This message and any attachments contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error please notify the sender immediately via email and then destroy this message and any attachments.

1 1

IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space registry updated
by Selina Harrington 01 Sep '15

01 Sep '15

Hi, ICANN has updated the IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space registry according to the Global Policy for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA. The policy states that in each IPv4 allocation period, each RIR will receive a single IPv4 allocation unit from ICANN. An IPv4 allocation period is defined as a 6-month period following 1 March or 1 September in each year. The address space selection software can be downloaded from: https://github.com/icann/ The list of allocations can be found at: https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-recovered-address-space/ Kind regards, Selina Harrington ******************************************* Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Phone: +1 310 301 5800 Fax: +1-310-823-8649 *******************************************

1 0