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

Upcoming Special and Regular Meetings

by Shaun Carlson

All, I've attached the legal documents with the suggested amendments. Please turn on viewing with markup to see the changes and comments. Please reply back to the list with any comments or discussion prior to the upcoming meetings. *Special Meeting (Virtual Only): Discuss 501.(c)6* - Tuesday, June 23rd at 4:00 PM - Webex Meeting Number: 190 552 992 *Regular, Quarterly Meeting (On-Site and Virtual): Vote on 501.(c)6* - Wednesday, July 15th at 4:00 PM - Location: 511 Building Cafeteria - Webex Meeting Number: 196 840 950 Please let me know if you need any additional follow-up or information. s *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

June 11, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Hannigan, Martin

> On Jun 4, 2015, at 2:37 PM, David Farmer <farmer(a)UMN.EDU> wrote: > > On 6/4/15 15:48 , Hannigan, Martin wrote: >>> On Jun 4, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)HE.NET> wrote: >>> >>> Marty- >>> As with SIX, the node operates as an extension. The core switch/switches will remain in Cologix. >> >> Suboptimal, unfortunately. > > Yes, this is not fully optimal yet, I want to see at least a second core site eventually. However, given; > > 1. This is our first announced remote site. > 2. There are other remote sites in the pipeline, I believe. > 3. Finally, none of the remote sites are even operational yet. > > Therefore, I suggest we defer the issue of another core site until the remote site picture develops a little bit. At this point picking the correct facility for an additional core site is premature, we are more likely to pick wrong than right at this point. > > I'm happy to consider the issue when there are operational remote sites with more than 2 or 3 participants each. Sounds better. Remember, SIX isn’t captured by the colo, MICE is for all intents and purposes. A second core should be a priority and help provide competitive pressure to make that less of an issue and provide real benefits for the members. Thanks for the vision. Appreciated. Best, -M<

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by David Farmer

On 6/4/15 15:48 , Hannigan, Martin wrote: >> On Jun 4, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)HE.NET> wrote: >> >> Marty- >> As with SIX, the node operates as an extension. The core switch/switches will remain in Cologix. > > Suboptimal, unfortunately. Yes, this is not fully optimal yet, I want to see at least a second core site eventually. However, given; 1. This is our first announced remote site. 2. There are other remote sites in the pipeline, I believe. 3. Finally, none of the remote sites are even operational yet. Therefore, I suggest we defer the issue of another core site until the remote site picture develops a little bit. At this point picking the correct facility for an additional core site is premature, we are more likely to pick wrong than right at this point. I'm happy to consider the issue when there are operational remote sites with more than 2 or 3 participants each. Thanks -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer(a)umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Jason Hanke

>> As with SIX, the node operates as an extension. The core switch/switches will remain in Cologix. >> > Suboptimal, unfortunately. > Marty, Could you clarify? If the switch is connected with plenty of bandwidth what difference does it make if we call it core or remote? Methinks the hardware is equivalent or at least on par with the core gear in this case. Jay

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Richard Laager

Martin, Can you provide a specific, *actionable* proposal of what it is you'd like the exchange entity to do? For example: I want MICE LLC to create a second, separate and co-equal site at location X. By separate, I mean it would not be interconnected with the existing switches at 511. We need a switch with Y ports of 10 Gig, which will be provided by company Z. Companies A & B are also committed to peer there and I believe this meets the requirements for an IP allocation from ARIN. Or: I want MICE LLC to lease space and power at, and fibers from 511 to location X. That is, MICE is responsible for hauling traffic between sites. We need a switch with Y ports of 10 Gig. The revenue to pay for this will come from company Z for the first A years. Or: I want MICE LLC to lease space, power, and fibers from 511 to location X. That is, MICE is responsible for hauling traffic between sites. We need a switch with Y ports of 10 Gig. The revenue to pay for this will come from charging member and port fees in the amount of $A/year and $B/year. Or whatever it is that you're actually proposing. -- Richard

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Steve Howard

On 06/04/2015 03:53 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote: >> On Jun 4, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)HE.NET> wrote: >> >> Marty- >> There is no reason at all to put a core node where there are no peers.If at some point the users wish to make any extension node a core node, that can be voted on. SIX does this successfully, there is no reason why we cannot as well. >> >> Reid > We disagree. > > Best, > > -M< > It has been a long day so maybe I'm just not thinking clearly. But, what exactly is a "core" node in this context? Looking over the SIX page at: https://www.seattleix.net/topology.html I can't see how the Extension switches that are connected to their Arista switch are any different than their Extreme & Nexus switches that are in their "core". Is "core" determined by who owns it? who maintains it? number of connected hosts? "network-central" location? total bandwidth? spanning tree priority (!!!)? Is there some layer 3 routing in there somewhere? I'm confused! Please enlighten me!

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Hannigan, Martin

> On Jun 4, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)HE.NET> wrote: > > Marty- > There is no reason at all to put a core node where there are no peers.If at some point the users wish to make any extension node a core node, that can be voted on. SIX does this successfully, there is no reason why we cannot as well. > > Reid We disagree. Best, -M<

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Reid Fishler

Marty- There is no reason at all to put a core node where there are no peers.If at some point the users wish to make any extension node a core node, that can be voted on. SIX does this successfully, there is no reason why we cannot as well. Reid On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)HE.NET> wrote: > > > > Marty- > > As with SIX, the node operates as an extension. The core > switch/switches will remain in Cologix. > > > > > > Suboptimal, unfortunately. > > > Best, > > -M< > > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Hannigan, Martin

> On Jun 4, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)HE.NET> wrote: > > Marty- > As with SIX, the node operates as an extension. The core switch/switches will remain in Cologix. > Suboptimal, unfortunately. Best, -M<

June 4, 2015

Re: Route Server stability

by Jeff Anderson

That’s us switching out CWDM gear over the last couple days! Jeff Anderson jeffa(a)implex.net<mailto:jeffa@implex.net> 612.799.7277 Cell 612.339.8255 x200 Office 612.339.3310 Fax [cid:image001.jpg@01D09EDD.4B2A0370] From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Tim Peiffer Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 12:16 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Route Server stability Yes. 206.108.255.5 . I apologize for confusing the addresses with the route servers. I will contact implex directly.. again, my apologies. Tim On 6/4/15 11:57 AM, Matthew Beckwell wrote: Tim, The IP/AS you referenced belongs to Implex...is that the peer you're seeing drop? ~Matthew On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Tim Peiffer <peiffer(a)umn.edu<mailto:peiffer@umn.edu>> wrote: The route reflectors have been bouncing a few times in the last 2 days. The connections had been pretty stable since the route reflectors were swapped out back at the end of March. 206.108.255.5/AS21709.micemn.net<http://206.108.255.5/AS21709.micemn.net> -- Tim Peiffer Network Support Engineer Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota/NorthernLights GigaPOP +1 612 626-7884<tel:%2B1%20612%20626-7884> (desk) ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 -- Tim Peiffer Network Support Engineer Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota/NorthernLights GigaPOP +1 612 626-7884 (desk) ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

June 4, 2015