December 2014 - mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G

by Hannigan, Martin

On Dec 5, 2014, at 3:55 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)HE.NET> wrote: > We covered this in a couple of our last meetings. There is a full Onvoy/Zayo facility. There isn't much interest there as its full, and its mostly voice carriers there. There is a Viawest facility opening, but Shaw has that covered. There is a facility that houses most of the Canadian carriers, but they aren't interested in peering. So ViaWest and Zayo don't want to compete? I'll make a few calls and check on that. Best, -M<

Dec. 5, 2014

Re: Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G

by Reid Fishler

We covered this in a couple of our last meetings. There is a full Onvoy/Zayo facility. There isn't much interest there as its full, and its mostly voice carriers there. There is a Viawest facility opening, but Shaw has that covered. There is a facility that houses most of the Canadian carriers, but they aren't interested in peering. Reid On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2014, at 3:33 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)HE.NET> wrote: > > > Marty- > > What facility would you like to create a leaf node in? There really is > no other facility of note in the MSP area. > > > > Reid > > You tell me. I heard there was a Zayo or other competitive facility > somewhere in the area. Perhaps the local team knows more? > > Best, > > -M< > > > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

Dec. 5, 2014

Re: Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G

by Hannigan, Martin

On Dec 5, 2014, at 3:33 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)HE.NET> wrote: > Marty- > What facility would you like to create a leaf node in? There really is no other facility of note in the MSP area. > > Reid You tell me. I heard there was a Zayo or other competitive facility somewhere in the area. Perhaps the local team knows more? Best, -M<

Dec. 5, 2014

Re: Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G

by Reid Fishler

Marty- What facility would you like to create a leaf node in? There really is no other facility of note in the MSP area. Reid On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)GEEKS.ORG> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:08:02AM -0600, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > > > >> Virtual Chassis backplane is only 128Gbps (2x64Gbps), which seems > >> like alot, but given how much of traffic the exchange is doing,> > >> could quickly become an oversubscribed bottleneck. > > > > Or just move to 4550's at $9K each + cables for 256Gbps (2x128Gbps) > > stacking, and even add in the QSFP module for 40Gbps additional > > capacity. > > > > This is all resolvable with money - money from port fees would have > > covered this. > > > > Poking the dead-horse that really is alive and kicking. > > > > Leading from behind! I am Hindmost, back-seat driver, and overall > > captain obvious.. > > > > Before anyone starts talking about port fees, more work needs to be done > to come up with exactly what it is we need and then how to get it. > > A few observations. From the traffic graph, and smoothing the anomalous > burst caused by new connections, the growth rate probably matches the > Internets minus something to account for the content players - which could > be applied as anywhere from 50% to 100% YoY, market dependent. If you're > going to deploy additional hardware, how about a plan for at least three > years of growth to minimize the cycles of ask/receive? A member survey > asking about planning and growth would be helpful. We need a leaf node in > another facility IMHO to also create some market pressure to keep costs low. > > Best, > > -M< > > > > > > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

Dec. 5, 2014

Re: Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G

by Hannigan, Martin

On Dec 5, 2014, at 3:11 PM, Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)GEEKS.ORG> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:08:02AM -0600, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > >> Virtual Chassis backplane is only 128Gbps (2x64Gbps), which seems >> like alot, but given how much of traffic the exchange is doing,> >> could quickly become an oversubscribed bottleneck. > > Or just move to 4550's at $9K each + cables for 256Gbps (2x128Gbps) > stacking, and even add in the QSFP module for 40Gbps additional > capacity. > > This is all resolvable with money - money from port fees would have > covered this. > > Poking the dead-horse that really is alive and kicking. > > Leading from behind! I am Hindmost, back-seat driver, and overall > captain obvious.. Before anyone starts talking about port fees, more work needs to be done to come up with exactly what it is we need and then how to get it. A few observations. From the traffic graph, and smoothing the anomalous burst caused by new connections, the growth rate probably matches the Internets minus something to account for the content players - which could be applied as anywhere from 50% to 100% YoY, market dependent. If you're going to deploy additional hardware, how about a plan for at least three years of growth to minimize the cycles of ask/receive? A member survey asking about planning and growth would be helpful. We need a leaf node in another facility IMHO to also create some market pressure to keep costs low. Best, -M<

Dec. 5, 2014

Re: Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G

by Reid Fishler

There have been some objections to the fee, as well as some problems in accepting monies in a larger amount. Reid On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Justin Krejci <JKrejci(a)usinternet.com> wrote: > Has there been any serious push to institute a fee associated with > connecting to MICE? > If not, can it be put on the agenda for the board to sort out/implement? > If not, can we do a referendum? (too lazy ATM to read if by-laws even > allow a referendum) > <sarcasm> > If not, well it's been good while it lasted > </sarcasm> > > I think MICE revenue generation (pre or post acquisition of IRS non-profit > status) should be top priority at this point in time. > > > ________________________________________ > From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Mike > Horwath [drechsau(a)GEEKS.ORG] > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 2:11 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:08:02AM -0600, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > > > Virtual Chassis backplane is only 128Gbps (2x64Gbps), which seems > > like alot, but given how much of traffic the exchange is doing,> > > could quickly become an oversubscribed bottleneck. > > Or just move to 4550's at $9K each + cables for 256Gbps (2x128Gbps) > stacking, and even add in the QSFP module for 40Gbps additional > capacity. > > This is all resolvable with money - money from port fees would have > covered this. > > Poking the dead-horse that really is alive and kicking. > > Leading from behind! I am Hindmost, back-seat driver, and overall > captain obvious.. > > -- > Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG > > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

Dec. 5, 2014

Re: Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G

by Shaun Carlson

We will add it to the agenda again, it's been tabled the last several times as we've been working towards the non-profit status. To date, we've, as a group, chosen to rely on donations to meet needs. s *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Justin Krejci <JKrejci(a)usinternet.com> wrote: > Has there been any serious push to institute a fee associated with > connecting to MICE? > If not, can it be put on the agenda for the board to sort out/implement? > If not, can we do a referendum? (too lazy ATM to read if by-laws even > allow a referendum) > <sarcasm> > If not, well it's been good while it lasted > </sarcasm> > > I think MICE revenue generation (pre or post acquisition of IRS non-profit > status) should be top priority at this point in time. > > > ________________________________________ > From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Mike > Horwath [drechsau(a)GEEKS.ORG] > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 2:11 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G > > On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:08:02AM -0600, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > > > Virtual Chassis backplane is only 128Gbps (2x64Gbps), which seems > > like alot, but given how much of traffic the exchange is doing,> > > could quickly become an oversubscribed bottleneck. > > Or just move to 4550's at $9K each + cables for 256Gbps (2x128Gbps) > stacking, and even add in the QSFP module for 40Gbps additional > capacity. > > This is all resolvable with money - money from port fees would have > covered this. > > Poking the dead-horse that really is alive and kicking. > > Leading from behind! I am Hindmost, back-seat driver, and overall > captain obvious.. > > -- > Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG >

Dec. 5, 2014

Re: Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G

by Justin Krejci

Has there been any serious push to institute a fee associated with connecting to MICE? If not, can it be put on the agenda for the board to sort out/implement? If not, can we do a referendum? (too lazy ATM to read if by-laws even allow a referendum) <sarcasm> If not, well it's been good while it lasted </sarcasm> I think MICE revenue generation (pre or post acquisition of IRS non-profit status) should be top priority at this point in time. ________________________________________ From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Mike Horwath [drechsau(a)GEEKS.ORG] Sent: Friday, December 05, 2014 2:11 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:08:02AM -0600, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > Virtual Chassis backplane is only 128Gbps (2x64Gbps), which seems > like alot, but given how much of traffic the exchange is doing,> > could quickly become an oversubscribed bottleneck. Or just move to 4550's at $9K each + cables for 256Gbps (2x128Gbps) stacking, and even add in the QSFP module for 40Gbps additional capacity. This is all resolvable with money - money from port fees would have covered this. Poking the dead-horse that really is alive and kicking. Leading from behind! I am Hindmost, back-seat driver, and overall captain obvious.. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Dec. 5, 2014

Re: Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G

by Mike Horwath

On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 09:08:02AM -0600, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > Virtual Chassis backplane is only 128Gbps (2x64Gbps), which seems > like alot, but given how much of traffic the exchange is doing,> > could quickly become an oversubscribed bottleneck. Or just move to 4550's at $9K each + cables for 256Gbps (2x128Gbps) stacking, and even add in the QSFP module for 40Gbps additional capacity. This is all resolvable with money - money from port fees would have covered this. Poking the dead-horse that really is alive and kicking. Leading from behind! I am Hindmost, back-seat driver, and overall captain obvious.. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Dec. 5, 2014

Re: Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G

by Andrew Hoyos

Likewise, I’d agree w/ Anthony here. Virtual Chassis backplane is only 128Gbps (2x64Gbps), which seems like alot, but given how much of traffic the exchange is doing, could quickly become an oversubscribed bottleneck. Also, have to factor in 24gbps of that to the other switch in the stack already to keep it non-blocking, so really only leaves 104Gbps. Add 10+ 10g participants to a new 4500 in VC config, and you’ve got potential for oversubscription. Doesn’t really scale. EX4500-UM-4XFP can be had for ~$1k on used market, and would buy some ports + time for the next revision of hardware to be decided on. — Andrew Hoyos Hoyos Consulting LLC ofc: +1 608 616 9950 andrew(a)hoyosconsulting.com http://www.hoyosconsulting.com > On Dec 3, 2014, at 7:51 PM, Anthony Anderberg <anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net> wrote: > > We’d also talked about add-in modules for the current ex4500-40f switch that could add up to 8 more 10G ports in 2 group of 4 at a time as a temporary fix until our 4th generation hardware setup is ready. I believe the part number is EX4500-UM-4XSFP, otherwise another switch and thoughtful port utilization to avoid over-stuffing the stacking cables is probably our best bet in the medium-term. > > > Anthony Anderberg > Sr. Systems Analyst > <image001.gif> > 320-234-5239 > anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net <mailto:anthonyanderberg@nu-telecom.net> > www.nutelecom.net <http://www.nutelecom.net/> > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 7:32 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G > > I think the low port count means that we need a switch sooner rather than later. I know there is a formal proposal in the works, however another 4500 may be the quick solution, and if we look at it from the viewpoint of if all of our current traffic had to flow between switches, we would not max it out, so another switch could buy us some time, while still being able to utilize most of the ports before any real bandwidth limitations. I think a call for donations/optional bill would draw in far more than enough cash. > > Jeremy > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Anthony Anderberg > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 7:15 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G > > Yesterday Google turned up their IPv6 advertisements, and the rush of additional traffic required HE to add a second 10G port on the exchange - they now have Xe-0/0/3 and Xe-0/0/13 as LAG bundle Ae6. > Thanks to Jeremy for coordinating everything. > > By my count we’ve got four free 10G ports on the main switch, plus a couple allocated that haven’t turned up. > > > Anthony Anderberg > Sr. Systems Analyst > <image001.gif> > 320-234-5239 > anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net <mailto:anthonyanderberg@nu-telecom.net> > www.nutelecom.net <http://www.nutelecom.net/> > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <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 <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 <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1>

Dec. 4, 2014