January 2015 - mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Statistics reporting for MICE?

by Steve Howard

On 01/02/2015 07:10 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > FYI, > > http://micelg.usinternet.com/export/graph_385.html shows in+out where http://micelg.usinternet.com/export/graph_384.html shows in/out. Which one should we use? > > I'd like to suggest that MICE follow OIX-1 with respect to agg and other stats: > > "The IXP MUST publish on a publicly available website the total sum of all incoming and outgoing traffic in bps from all connected networks on the public peering VLAN. The traffic sum MUST include the traffic on customer facing ports only and MUST be made up of 5 min average traffic > measurements. A distinction MUST be made between the traffic on the public peering VLAN and > any other interconnection service." > > Traffic "massiveness" isn't as important as how many ASNs are connected. Traffic is an unpredictable and unreliable indicator of an exchanges size and value. ASN counts are much more granular for potential peers to build a case to join. > I think that each potential peer determines the value of an exchange based upon their situation and business dynamics. For providers like us that mainly serve "eyeball" customers, traffic "massiveness" is probably the most important value indicator. Generally speaking, if my cost/bit is cheaper or higher quality at an exchange than a transit provider, then the more "massive" the better! To the overwhelming majority of our members/customers it doesn't matter whether the traffic comes from one ASN or a thousand ASNs. I'd like to see us consider including ASN count and total routes/netblocks on the MICE website. I don't know how much "real world" value there is with the route/netblock count, but it looks nice for marketing purposes! We currently see 44 ASNs and ~62,700 netblocks at MICE. I think that these are great numbers for a relatively new exchange. Steve

Jan. 3, 2015

Re: Statistics reporting for MICE?

by Frank Bulk

We’re all adults here, and more so, we’re supposed to be network professionals. If we believe that MICE is supposed to be production quality then it needs to be treated as such. Suggestion: any irregular/significant maintenance activity should be communicated at least five business days in advance and if there’s regular maintenance (configuration change) that should be done during a prescribed maintenance window (i.e. every Wednesday between 1 and 5 am). No one likes getting up at 2 am, but our staff does it regularly because things happen, despite our vendors’ claims to the contrary. Frank From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Matthew Beckwell Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2015 12:23 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Statistics reporting for MICE? I'm with Andrew on his suggestion of either a formalized or gentlemen's agreement for a "heads up" with these types of activities. We experienced at least a partial outage (i.e. UDP Packet Loss) over MICE between 13:38:47 and 13:40:02 on Friday. I know this activity wasn't supposed to be service impacting-- but accidents and unexpected things happen. A heads up would give conservative members the opportunity to re-route in a controlled manner (if they desire). My personal preference would be a 24 hour notice so I could take action the night before, but I'll take what I can get (even if it's only an hour). ~Matthew Matthew Beckwell - Director of Network Operations Advanced Integrated Technologies Technical Support: 1-800-300-5408 Office: 1-952-829-5511 x204 E-Mail: matthewb(a)aitech.net<mailto:matthewb@aitech.net> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>> wrote: I may have missed something, but I don’t recall seeing any email chatter about this happening. Unsure what the normal ops/maintenance protocol is, but I’d say when doing stuff like below (module adds/swaps), at least a heads up to mice-discuss would be in order for the benefit of all the members. Or given the growth of MICE, perhaps it’s time the steering committee should formalize something there. Thoughts from other folks? As far as the graphs, we should look at fixing the RRD files to remove that spike with the wacky/erroneous values so things look proper still. I’d be happy to help with that if anyone needs a hand. I think there may even be a Cacti plugin that does that, IIRC. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com> > On Jan 2, 2015, at 8:28 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM<mailto:jlumby@MNVOIP.COM>> wrote: > > The huge Cacti traffic spike coincided with adding a 4 port fiber module to the 4200 switch. Juniper claimed it was hot swappable, however the issues were more than they eluded to. > > This came about since I donated some modules to hold MICE over until a more permanent hardware upgrade can be picked. The good news is the 4500 now has 4 additional SFP+ ports, and the 4200 now has 4 SFP ports. This will allow some of the members that are at 1G that needed a fiber handoff to be moved to the 4200 freeing up additional 10G ports in the 4500. > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Richard Laager > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 8:06 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Statistics reporting for MICE? > > I was going to say that I thought we were doing exactly that at http://micemn.net but when I pulled up the website to verify, I see that something is very wrong with the graph. > > Did anyone change something in Cacti recently? > > -- > Richard > >> On Jan 2, 2015, at 7:10 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)AKAMAI.COM<mailto:marty@AKAMAI.COM>> wrote: >> >> >> >> FYI, >> >> http://micelg.usinternet.com/export/graph_385.html shows in+out where http://micelg.usinternet.com/export/graph_384.html shows in/out. Which one should we use? >> >> I'd like to suggest that MICE follow OIX-1 with respect to agg and other stats: >> >> "The IXP MUST publish on a publicly available website the total sum of >> all incoming and outgoing traffic in bps from all connected networks >> on the public peering VLAN. The traffic sum MUST include the traffic on customer facing ports only and MUST be made up of 5 min average traffic measurements. A distinction MUST be made between the traffic on the public peering VLAN and any other interconnection service." >> >> Traffic "massiveness" isn't as important as how many ASNs are connected. Traffic is an unpredictable and unreliable indicator of an exchanges size and value. ASN counts are much more granular for potential peers to build a case to join. >> >> >> Best, >> >> -M< >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Jan. 3, 2015

Re: Statistics reporting for MICE?

by Matthew Beckwell

I'm with Andrew on his suggestion of either a formalized or gentlemen's agreement for a "heads up" with these types of activities. We experienced at least a partial outage (i.e. UDP Packet Loss) over MICE between 13:38:47 and 13:40:02 on Friday. I know this activity wasn't supposed to be service impacting-- but accidents and unexpected things happen. A heads up would give conservative members the opportunity to re-route in a controlled manner (if they desire). My personal preference would be a 24 hour notice so I could take action the night before, but I'll take what I can get (even if it's only an hour). ~Matthew *Matthew Beckwell* - Director of Network Operations Advanced Integrated Technologies Technical Support: 1-800-300-5408 Office: 1-952-829-5511 x204 E-Mail: matthewb(a)aitech.net On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I may have missed something, but I don’t recall seeing any email chatter > about this happening. Unsure what the normal ops/maintenance protocol is, > but I’d say when doing stuff like below (module adds/swaps), at least a > heads up to mice-discuss would be in order for the benefit of all the > members. Or given the growth of MICE, perhaps it’s time the steering > committee should formalize something there. Thoughts from other folks? > > As far as the graphs, we should look at fixing the RRD files to remove > that spike with the wacky/erroneous values so things look proper still. I’d > be happy to help with that if anyone needs a hand. I think there may even > be a Cacti plugin that does that, IIRC. > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com > > > > > On Jan 2, 2015, at 8:28 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM> wrote: > > > > The huge Cacti traffic spike coincided with adding a 4 port fiber module > to the 4200 switch. Juniper claimed it was hot swappable, however the > issues were more than they eluded to. > > > > This came about since I donated some modules to hold MICE over until a > more permanent hardware upgrade can be picked. The good news is the 4500 > now has 4 additional SFP+ ports, and the 4200 now has 4 SFP ports. This > will allow some of the members that are at 1G that needed a fiber handoff > to be moved to the 4200 freeing up additional 10G ports in the 4500. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of > Richard Laager > > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 8:06 PM > > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Statistics reporting for MICE? > > > > I was going to say that I thought we were doing exactly that at > http://micemn.net but when I pulled up the website to verify, I see that > something is very wrong with the graph. > > > > Did anyone change something in Cacti recently? > > > > -- > > Richard > > > >> On Jan 2, 2015, at 7:10 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)AKAMAI.COM> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> FYI, > >> > >> http://micelg.usinternet.com/export/graph_385.html shows in+out where > http://micelg.usinternet.com/export/graph_384.html shows in/out. Which > one should we use? > >> > >> I'd like to suggest that MICE follow OIX-1 with respect to agg and > other stats: > >> > >> "The IXP MUST publish on a publicly available website the total sum of > >> all incoming and outgoing traffic in bps from all connected networks > >> on the public peering VLAN. The traffic sum MUST include the traffic on > customer facing ports only and MUST be made up of 5 min average traffic > measurements. A distinction MUST be made between the traffic on the public > peering VLAN and any other interconnection service." > >> > >> Traffic "massiveness" isn't as important as how many ASNs are > connected. Traffic is an unpredictable and unreliable indicator of an > exchanges size and value. ASN counts are much more granular for potential > peers to build a case to join. > >> > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> -M< > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >

Jan. 3, 2015

Re: Statistics reporting for MICE?

by Andrew Hoyos

I may have missed something, but I don’t recall seeing any email chatter about this happening. Unsure what the normal ops/maintenance protocol is, but I’d say when doing stuff like below (module adds/swaps), at least a heads up to mice-discuss would be in order for the benefit of all the members. Or given the growth of MICE, perhaps it’s time the steering committee should formalize something there. Thoughts from other folks? As far as the graphs, we should look at fixing the RRD files to remove that spike with the wacky/erroneous values so things look proper still. I’d be happy to help with that if anyone needs a hand. I think there may even be a Cacti plugin that does that, IIRC. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Jan 2, 2015, at 8:28 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)MNVOIP.COM> wrote: > > The huge Cacti traffic spike coincided with adding a 4 port fiber module to the 4200 switch. Juniper claimed it was hot swappable, however the issues were more than they eluded to. > > This came about since I donated some modules to hold MICE over until a more permanent hardware upgrade can be picked. The good news is the 4500 now has 4 additional SFP+ ports, and the 4200 now has 4 SFP ports. This will allow some of the members that are at 1G that needed a fiber handoff to be moved to the 4200 freeing up additional 10G ports in the 4500. > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 8:06 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Statistics reporting for MICE? > > I was going to say that I thought we were doing exactly that at http://micemn.net but when I pulled up the website to verify, I see that something is very wrong with the graph. > > Did anyone change something in Cacti recently? > > -- > Richard > >> On Jan 2, 2015, at 7:10 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)AKAMAI.COM> wrote: >> >> >> >> FYI, >> >> http://micelg.usinternet.com/export/graph_385.html shows in+out where http://micelg.usinternet.com/export/graph_384.html shows in/out. Which one should we use? >> >> I'd like to suggest that MICE follow OIX-1 with respect to agg and other stats: >> >> "The IXP MUST publish on a publicly available website the total sum of >> all incoming and outgoing traffic in bps from all connected networks >> on the public peering VLAN. The traffic sum MUST include the traffic on customer facing ports only and MUST be made up of 5 min average traffic measurements. A distinction MUST be made between the traffic on the public peering VLAN and any other interconnection service." >> >> Traffic "massiveness" isn't as important as how many ASNs are connected. Traffic is an unpredictable and unreliable indicator of an exchanges size and value. ASN counts are much more granular for potential peers to build a case to join. >> >> >> Best, >> >> -M< >> >> >> >> >>

Jan. 3, 2015

Re: Statistics reporting for MICE?

by Jeremy Lumby

The huge Cacti traffic spike coincided with adding a 4 port fiber module to the 4200 switch. Juniper claimed it was hot swappable, however the issues were more than they eluded to. This came about since I donated some modules to hold MICE over until a more permanent hardware upgrade can be picked. The good news is the 4500 now has 4 additional SFP+ ports, and the 4200 now has 4 SFP ports. This will allow some of the members that are at 1G that needed a fiber handoff to be moved to the 4200 freeing up additional 10G ports in the 4500. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Friday, January 02, 2015 8:06 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Statistics reporting for MICE? I was going to say that I thought we were doing exactly that at http://micemn.net but when I pulled up the website to verify, I see that something is very wrong with the graph. Did anyone change something in Cacti recently? -- Richard > On Jan 2, 2015, at 7:10 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)AKAMAI.COM> wrote: > > > > FYI, > > http://micelg.usinternet.com/export/graph_385.html shows in+out where http://micelg.usinternet.com/export/graph_384.html shows in/out. Which one should we use? > > I'd like to suggest that MICE follow OIX-1 with respect to agg and other stats: > > "The IXP MUST publish on a publicly available website the total sum of > all incoming and outgoing traffic in bps from all connected networks > on the public peering VLAN. The traffic sum MUST include the traffic on customer facing ports only and MUST be made up of 5 min average traffic measurements. A distinction MUST be made between the traffic on the public peering VLAN and any other interconnection service." > > Traffic "massiveness" isn't as important as how many ASNs are connected. Traffic is an unpredictable and unreliable indicator of an exchanges size and value. ASN counts are much more granular for potential peers to build a case to join. > > > Best, > > -M< > > > > >

Jan. 3, 2015

Re: Statistics reporting for MICE?

by Richard Laager

I was going to say that I thought we were doing exactly that at http://micemn.net but when I pulled up the website to verify, I see that something is very wrong with the graph. Did anyone change something in Cacti recently? -- Richard > On Jan 2, 2015, at 7:10 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)AKAMAI.COM> wrote: > > > > FYI, > > http://micelg.usinternet.com/export/graph_385.html shows in+out where http://micelg.usinternet.com/export/graph_384.html shows in/out. Which one should we use? > > I'd like to suggest that MICE follow OIX-1 with respect to agg and other stats: > > "The IXP MUST publish on a publicly available website the total sum of all incoming and outgoing traffic in bps from all connected networks on the public peering VLAN. The traffic sum MUST include the traffic on customer facing ports only and MUST be made up of 5 min average traffic > measurements. A distinction MUST be made between the traffic on the public peering VLAN and > any other interconnection service." > > Traffic "massiveness" isn't as important as how many ASNs are connected. Traffic is an unpredictable and unreliable indicator of an exchanges size and value. ASN counts are much more granular for potential peers to build a case to join. > > > Best, > > -M< > > > > >

Jan. 3, 2015

Statistics reporting for MICE?

by Hannigan, Martin

FYI, http://micelg.usinternet.com/export/graph_385.html shows in+out where http://micelg.usinternet.com/export/graph_384.html shows in/out. Which one should we use? I'd like to suggest that MICE follow OIX-1 with respect to agg and other stats: "The IXP MUST publish on a publicly available website the total sum of all incoming and outgoing traffic in bps from all connected networks on the public peering VLAN. The traffic sum MUST include the traffic on customer facing ports only and MUST be made up of 5 min average traffic measurements. A distinction MUST be made between the traffic on the public peering VLAN and any other interconnection service." Traffic "massiveness" isn't as important as how many ASNs are connected. Traffic is an unpredictable and unreliable indicator of an exchanges size and value. ASN counts are much more granular for potential peers to build a case to join. Best, -M<

Jan. 3, 2015

Re: Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G

by Hannigan, Martin

On Jan 2, 2015, at 4:09 PM, Bil MacLeslie <bil(a)IPHOUSE.NET> wrote: > On 12/31/14 10:49 AM, Hannigan, Martin wrote: >> >> How much are your cross connect fees? > > Marty, > > Without sounding like a "us too" message, I'm also publicly offering > that ipHouse become a leaf node. Many of you heard from me off list > about this last fall. > > Connecting a leaf node to the core of MICE is something that needs to be > considered before making any decision as how to expand the exchange. An > important differentiator for ipHouse, we have the capacity to get to the > 511 via our existing connection. > > We are proposing that we connect the ipHouse facility to MICE with 10G > optics (expandable as growth occurs) on our existing dark fiber > connection. We can provide MICE any necessary space and power within the > ipHouse facility. > > To answer your question directly about cross connects, there are fees to > connect into the ipHouse data center from elsewhere in our building, but > for those who are colocated within our data center, a GigE cross connect > to MICE is included with colo. > > Our facility is very well connected, below is a list of carriers with > networks in our building. There are several individual networks under > common ownership here (e.g. Zayo or Windstream), but the individual > network footprints have reach, which could be attractive to potential > members of MICE. > > CenturyLink / Qwest (QC/QCC) > Cologix / MN Gateway / FWR > Enventis (Hickorytech / CP Telecom) > Integra (Electric Lightwave / Frontier) > Level3 (Global Crossing / Time Warner Telecom) > TDS Metrocom (US Link) > Verizon / MCI / WorldCom / Metropolitan Fiber Systems > Windstream (KDL / McLeod / Norlight/ PAETEC) > Zayo (360 Networks / American Fiber Systems / Touch America) > > It sounds like this is a topic that should be on the agenda. > Hey Bill. Agreed. I have a few points with respect to this, but I'll keep it brief. Without port fees or donations, MICE has no capital for hardware. In the scenario above, I'd argue it would be better to deal with a building owner directly (where the owner isn't also in retail colo) to insure neutrality and to keep interconnection costs to a minimum. Not having to traverse a suite would keep the extended interconnect fees at or near null. Finally, this would also address the density issue we are facing here. The bigger the exchange grows in its single location, the more dense the colo becomes network wise and the less likely we're going to be able to see a robust and distributed internet. You don't need to look far to see that in the big metros everyone builds wave systems back to a SPOF. This market is still not that mature and doing something now vs. later would likely benefit it. For some data center operators, this is may be hard pill to swallow which is why exclusivity arrangements should be verboten. For most, it means having access to the differentiator and creating competition based on the real estate and energy costs. Thats good for network operators and good for the market IMHO. Best, -M<

Jan. 3, 2015

Re: Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G

by Larry Patterson

Marty, Here are the rates from our standard collocation agreement. Let me know if you have any questions. Once again, I want to stress we are operating a carrier neutral facility with all providers in our meet-me space. No building riser charges apply. We are SOC-3 and staffed by NOC 24/7 onsite. Thanks, Larry Patterson B: Atomic Data Interconnection Charges: B:1 DS1 Interconnection Rates ATOMIC DATA will charge the following rates as outlined below, per DS1 cable (if available) for dedicated TDM services from Customer’s Equipment in the Colocation Space to Service Providers and other Collocation Parties in the Colocation Space NRC: $50.00 MRC: $25.00 B:2 DS3 Interconnection Rates ATOMIC DATA will charge the following rates as outlined below, DS3 cable (if available) for dedicated TDM services, that require a connection from Customer’s Equipment in Colocation Space to Service Providers and other Collocation Parties in the Colocation Space NRC: $150.00 MRC: $100.00 B:3 Cat5E/Cat 6 Interconnection Rates ATOMIC DATA will charge the following rates for each, CAT5/6 cable (if available) for dedicated Ethernet services, that require a connection from Customer’s Equipment in the Colocation Space to Service Providers and other Collocation Parties in the Colocation Space: NRC: $150.00 MRC: $100.00 B:4 Conduit Interconnection Rates: ATOMIC DATA will charge the following rates for each, Conduit (if available) for dedicated services, that require a connection from Customer’s Equipment in the Colocation Space to Service Providers, DMARC, and other Collocation Parties in the Colocation Space: NRC: $T&M MRC: $100.00 B:5 Dark Fiber Interconnection Rates: Dark fiber (if available) connections from Customer’s Equipment in the Colocation Space to Service Providers and other Collocation Parties in the Colocation Space, ATOMIC DATA will charge the following rates per two (2) Single Mode fibers: CenturyLink (QCC or QC): $500-NRC, $250.00-MRC Cogent Communications: $500.00-NRC, $250.00-MRC Comcast: $500.00-NRC, $250.00-MRC ATOMIC DATA: $500.00-NRC, $250.00-MRC Level 3: $500.00-NRC, $250.00-NRC TW Telecom: $500.00-NRC, $250.00-MRC XO: $500.00-NRC, $250.00-MRC Sent from my iPhone Larry Patterson Chief Technology Officer ---- Atomic Data // Safe. Simple. Smart. 615 North 3rd Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 Main // 612.466.2000 Direct // 612.466.2080 Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/AtomicDataCenters> // Twitter<http://twitter.com/AtomicData> // LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/atomic-data> On Dec 31, 2014, at 10:49, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)AKAMAI.COM<mailto:marty@AKAMAI.COM>> wrote: How much are your cross connect fees? On Dec 31, 2014, at 11:13, Larry Patterson <larry(a)ATOMICDATA.COM<mailto:larry@ATOMICDATA.COM>> wrote: I would like to offer an alternative. Atomic Data (an existing MICE participant) operates a carrier-neutral colocation facility in the old Federal Reserve Bank building (250 Marquette Ave, Minneapolis, MN). We have over 15,000 sq ft of raised floor data center space enclosed inside of the old vault. We have established a carrier-neutral meet-me cage and have brought in fiber optic facilities from XO, CenturyLink (QCC and QC), Time Warner Telecom, Cogent, Level3, and Comcast thus far. Our model is very similar to what would be available at 511. Customers can order cross-connects to any carrier in our facility. I would like to propose that Atomic Data will donate to MICE a free cabinet in our data center with power included. Any current or future customer of Atomic will be provided a free copper-based gigabit cross connect to a MICE switch located in this cabinet upon request. Please let me know of your interest in this offer. Happy New Years! Thanks, Larry Patterson Larry Patterson Chief Technology Officer ---- Atomic Data // Safe. Simple. Smart. 615 North 3rd Street Minneapolis, MN 55401 Main // 612.466.2000 Direct // 612.466.2080 Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/AtomicDataCenters> // Twitter<http://twitter.com/AtomicData> // LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/atomic-data> On 12/30/14, 4:08 PM, "Jake" <jake.lubitz(a)ENVENTIS.COM<mailto:jake.lubitz@ENVENTIS.COM>> wrote: >Greetings > >Just wanted to bump this discussion. > >I just had a conversation with a VP with DataBank, a data center service >provider here in the Twin Cities metro, about MICE and the current state >of the exchange. During that conversation, I had mentioned that the >exchange is looking to grow into a secondary site and that the exchange >was in the very preliminary stages of discussing a new site. > >As a result of this conversation, they expressed a lot of interest in >donating space, power, and cross-connect services out of their brand new >facility in Eagan for a secondary leaf site for MICE. They said they >could possibly assist in locating some dark fiber between the two sites >as well if the exchange decided to go with DataBank for their secondary >site. > >This Eagan site has close proximity to the AccessEagan network as well as >a number of providers that may be interested in participating in the >exchange. > >Below is a link showing where this facility is located: > >https://www.google.com/maps/place/3255+Neil+Armstrong+Blvd,+Eagan,+MN+5512 >1/@44.841549,-93.1413613,12z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x87f62dae5be6f9d5:0x86bc90d8 >9c3d37da > >I emphasized that the exchange is in the very early stages of discussion >about a secondary site. I also mentioned that the exchange is hosting an >user group here on January 14th. DataBank would be very interested in >dialing into the conference bridge to talk about what they have to offer. > >If this is something that the exchange would like to pursue, please let >me know and I can forward along the user group conference bridge >information to the proper DataBank personnel. DataBank also mentioned >that they would be able to provide a tour of the new facility during the >early part of the third week of January if there¹s any interest in >checking out the new facility. > >Thoughts? > >Thanks in advance. > >Jake ________________________________ 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

Jan. 3, 2015

Re: Googling on IPv6 and HE to 20G

by Bil MacLeslie

On 12/31/14 10:49 AM, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > How much are your cross connect fees? Marty, Without sounding like a "us too" message, I'm also publicly offering that ipHouse become a leaf node. Many of you heard from me off list about this last fall. Connecting a leaf node to the core of MICE is something that needs to be considered before making any decision as how to expand the exchange. An important differentiator for ipHouse, we have the capacity to get to the 511 via our existing connection. We are proposing that we connect the ipHouse facility to MICE with 10G optics (expandable as growth occurs) on our existing dark fiber connection. We can provide MICE any necessary space and power within the ipHouse facility. To answer your question directly about cross connects, there are fees to connect into the ipHouse data center from elsewhere in our building, but for those who are colocated within our data center, a GigE cross connect to MICE is included with colo. Our facility is very well connected, below is a list of carriers with networks in our building. There are several individual networks under common ownership here (e.g. Zayo or Windstream), but the individual network footprints have reach, which could be attractive to potential members of MICE. CenturyLink / Qwest (QC/QCC) Cologix / MN Gateway / FWR Enventis (Hickorytech / CP Telecom) Integra (Electric Lightwave / Frontier) Level3 (Global Crossing / Time Warner Telecom) TDS Metrocom (US Link) Verizon / MCI / WorldCom / Metropolitan Fiber Systems Windstream (KDL / McLeod / Norlight/ PAETEC) Zayo (360 Networks / American Fiber Systems / Touch America) It sounds like this is a topic that should be on the agenda. Bil -- Bil K. MacLeslie | TGWGTD | ipHouse | www.ipHouse.com Office: 612-337-6337 | Direct: 612-337-6206 | Cell: 612-618-1218

Jan. 2, 2015