November 2016 - mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Fee Poll results

by Andrew Hoyos

Not sure if Facebook is the best way to gather a good representation of the entire member base? Could we do the same poll via a google form or something? I’d be happy to set something up. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Nov 28, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: > > Here are the results from the over the weekend Fee poll: > > Recurring (Annual or Monthly Fees) 12 votes > One time Fees 8 votes > Optional, but invoiced to begin with 3 votes > No Fees 1 vote > > -- > Jay Hanke > CTO > Neutral Path Communications > 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 > Mankato, MN 56001 > (507) 327-2398 mobile > jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net > www.neutralpath.net

Nov. 28, 2016

Fee Poll results

by Jason Hanke

Here are the results from the over the weekend Fee poll: Recurring (Annual or Monthly Fees) 12 votes One time Fees 8 votes Optional, but invoiced to begin with 3 votes No Fees 1 vote -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Nov. 28, 2016

Port Fees Poll

by Jason Hanke

I've posted a Facebook poll looking for member input on port fees: https://www.facebook.com/events/179450035795693/permalink/197514153989281/ Also, please rsvp on the facebook event. -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Nov. 25, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Dave Williams

I would like to connect to them to have access to both their services and MICE from 1 cross connect. This idea isn't new, it's why we are connected to Mankato's remote switch. Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)GMAIL.COM> Date: 11/22/16 10:54 AM (GMT-06:00) To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having this in place? Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch at 511. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Jeremy Lumby

To further add to Anthony's comments, I plan on keeping the MICE access portion of the remote switch completely free even if MICE starts charging port fees on the main switch. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 11:57 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. In this respect Jeremy's plan is similar to the CNS and Mankato Networks remote switches, which are both within a few dozen feet of the main switch stack. I can certainly picture that potential members who were quite small would need to carefully weigh the cost of a dedicated main switch cross connect, especially in the beginning when the value-add is unknown. If I put my "guy counting the traffic" hat on I'd like to be able to enumerate the individual member's links, but understand that if their switch port is used for multiple things breaking out MICE traffic will be problematic so we'd need to just count the aggregate uplink in/out traffic. That's what we do with the Mankato Networks remote switch today. With my MICE tech hat on we've said that if a participant was causing trouble behind a remote switch we didn't have access to we'd cut off the remote switch's uplink if we were unable to get ahold of the remote switch operator. That's the situation with the Neutral Path and CNS remote switches today (not that we've ever had trouble with them.) So my $0.02 would be that as we've grown we've struggled with how to keep costs reasonable for smaller members, and that this provides them with one more option to participate - so it's all good. Cheers, anthony Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net www.nutelecom.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:54 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having this in place? Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch at 511. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Shaun Carlson

I'm on board with this. I think the more we can do to help the smaller members afford to connect, the better. s *Shaun Carlson*Director of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:56 AM, anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net < anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net> wrote: > > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. > > In this respect Jeremy's plan is similar to the CNS and Mankato Networks > remote switches, which are both within a few dozen feet of the main switch > stack. I can certainly picture that potential members who were quite small > would need to carefully weigh the cost of a dedicated main switch cross > connect, especially in the beginning when the value-add is unknown. > > If I put my "guy counting the traffic" hat on I'd like to be able to > enumerate the individual member's links, but understand that if their > switch port is used for multiple things breaking out MICE traffic will be > problematic so we'd need to just count the aggregate uplink in/out > traffic. That's what we do with the Mankato Networks remote switch today. > > With my MICE tech hat on we've said that if a participant was causing > trouble behind a remote switch we didn't have access to we'd cut off the > remote switch's uplink if we were unable to get ahold of the remote switch > operator. That's the situation with the Neutral Path and CNS remote > switches today (not that we've ever had trouble with them.) > > So my $0.02 would be that as we've grown we've struggled with how to keep > costs reasonable for smaller members, and that this provides them with one > more option to participate - so it's all good. > > Cheers, > anthony > > Anthony Anderberg > Sr. Systems Analyst > 320-234-5239 > anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net > www.nutelecom.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of > Andrew Hoyos > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:54 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > > > On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. > > Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be > enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, > beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional > transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having > this in place? > > Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch > at 511. > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com >

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by anthonyanderberg＠nu-telecom.net

> Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. In this respect Jeremy's plan is similar to the CNS and Mankato Networks remote switches, which are both within a few dozen feet of the main switch stack. I can certainly picture that potential members who were quite small would need to carefully weigh the cost of a dedicated main switch cross connect, especially in the beginning when the value-add is unknown. If I put my "guy counting the traffic" hat on I'd like to be able to enumerate the individual member's links, but understand that if their switch port is used for multiple things breaking out MICE traffic will be problematic so we'd need to just count the aggregate uplink in/out traffic. That's what we do with the Mankato Networks remote switch today. With my MICE tech hat on we've said that if a participant was causing trouble behind a remote switch we didn't have access to we'd cut off the remote switch's uplink if we were unable to get ahold of the remote switch operator. That's the situation with the Neutral Path and CNS remote switches today (not that we've ever had trouble with them.) So my $0.02 would be that as we've grown we've struggled with how to keep costs reasonable for smaller members, and that this provides them with one more option to participate - so it's all good. Cheers, anthony Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net www.nutelecom.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:54 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having this in place? Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch at 511. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Jeremy Lumby

The value exists in connecting more smaller participants to MICE. Right now the price of the cross connect can be a deterrent for people who are pushing less than 100M My hope is to bring more people in by offering my other services alongside MICE access on the same cross connect. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:54 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having this in place? Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch at 511. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Andrew Hoyos

> On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having this in place? Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch at 511. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Gary Glissendorf

What's the need for a remote switch in the same building as the Core Switches? Are they running out of ports Gary Glissendorf | Network Architect gary.glissendorf(a)sdncommunications.com | 2900 W 10th St. | Sioux Falls, SD 57104 USA Direct +1.605.978.3558 | Mobile +1.605.359.3737 | TF +1.800.247.1442 | Fax +1.605.334.4782 “Be Excellent to Each Other” -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:44 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request The board has received a request for a new remote switch. In accordance with our procedures, I'm bringing this to the community for discussion. After this, the board will vote on the proposal. The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. Jeremy Lumby wrote: > I would promise to notify any members connecting to the switch that > they are not on the main switch, upgrade my link to the main MICE > switch if the traffic goes above 66% and impose MAC, and BDPU limits > on all member facing ports connecting to the remote switch. To get > started I would upgrade to a 10G single port LAG The switch may not be dedicated to MICE. As such, the MICE technical committee may not have configuration access to the switch. SNMP access (for graphing individual ports) also may not be available, depending on build out. -- Richard ________________________________ ***This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, use or distribution of the information included in this message is prohibited -- Please immediately and permanently delete.***

Nov. 22, 2016