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

Participants leaking BGP routes for the MICE IXP Block

by David Farmer

I have BGPmon set up to notify me of the MICE IXP blocks (IPv4 and IPv6) are being announce in BGP by any other AS that MICE itself. The current BPC is to not even put a route in your IGP for for an exchange block, let alone originate a BGP route for it. http://www.bgp4all.com.au/dokuwiki/_media/conferences/apnic42-ixp-design-bc… See slide 45. In the last 2 or 3 months I have seen three different participant ASNs originate routes for 206.108.255.0/24, haven't seen any for do it for 2001:504:27::0/48. I'm not going to name and shame, at least for past events. But, what should we do about this going forward? 1. Ignore it 2. Notify transgressors PRIVATELY 3. Manually, Name and Shame transgressors 4. Automated, Name and Shame of transgressors (setup a BGPmon account to mail to MICE-DISCUSS) 5. Other ideas? (electro-shock for transgressors :) ) Thanks -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================

Dec. 2, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Jason Hanke

After talking to the accountant, it is my understanding is MICE would not pay income taxes on the donation. On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Brady Kittel <bkittel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the clarification Jay, so what I was getting at is MICE would > owe taxes on the value of the donation if it were not classified as a > non-profit when the donation was received. > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> > wrote: > >> Also just a big thanks to USI (and Arista?) for the donation. This is not >>> a small amount of hardware. I'm a bit behind the curve but I'm assuming the >>> IX has cleared the hurdles for proper federal non-profit status now? I only >>> ask as we sure don't want to have to pay taxes on the value of a 7504 with >>> blades next April if we aren't yet and thus would need to stall on taking >>> actual possession of the equipment until non-profit status is achieved. >>> >>> >> Our request for 501c6 status has been filed. MICE is allowed to operate >> as a 501c6 until the IRS tells us otherwise. Donations are not tax >> deductible but port fees may be tax deductible as business expenses. >> >> Jay >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> 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 > -- 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

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Brady Kittel

Thanks for the clarification Jay, so what I was getting at is MICE would owe taxes on the value of the donation if it were not classified as a non-profit when the donation was received. On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> wrote: > Also just a big thanks to USI (and Arista?) for the donation. This is not >> a small amount of hardware. I'm a bit behind the curve but I'm assuming the >> IX has cleared the hurdles for proper federal non-profit status now? I only >> ask as we sure don't want to have to pay taxes on the value of a 7504 with >> blades next April if we aren't yet and thus would need to stall on taking >> actual possession of the equipment until non-profit status is achieved. >> >> > Our request for 501c6 status has been filed. MICE is allowed to operate as > a 501c6 until the IRS tells us otherwise. Donations are not tax deductible > but port fees may be tax deductible as business expenses. > > Jay > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Mike Horwath

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:52:42PM -0600, Jason Hanke wrote: > Our request for 501c6 status has been filed. MICE is allowed to operate as > a 501c6 until the IRS tells us otherwise. Donations are not tax deductible > but port fees may be tax deductible as business expenses. Check with your accountant - MICE fees could be COGS, OPEX, or could be so many other things. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Jason Hanke

> > Also just a big thanks to USI (and Arista?) for the donation. This is not > a small amount of hardware. I'm a bit behind the curve but I'm assuming the > IX has cleared the hurdles for proper federal non-profit status now? I only > ask as we sure don't want to have to pay taxes on the value of a 7504 with > blades next April if we aren't yet and thus would need to stall on taking > actual possession of the equipment until non-profit status is achieved. > > Our request for 501c6 status has been filed. MICE is allowed to operate as a 501c6 until the IRS tells us otherwise. Donations are not tax deductible but port fees may be tax deductible as business expenses. Jay

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Brady Kittel

Not to wade into deep waters but we are in favor of the proposed billing structure that Jay laid out. To be honest we are just in favor of a model that allows the IX to collect enough money to be stable, remove the current uncertainty around the long term viability of the IX and not drive away members. I think it's worth saying that whatever model is chosen doesn't have to be the perfect and final model. Just one that brings in enough income to service maintenance and support costs we know are required to keep the lights on and start to build up some amount of reserve. It can always be adjusted in a year to account for the needs of exchange and its members and it likely will need to be adjusted every year to account for the actual monetary needs of the exchange and to establish the right run rate of cash on hand to allow for future hardware purchases for expansion. For instance of the donated switch is a 7504 there would logically be a future upgrade to a 7508 chassis and line card adds that need to be accounted for along with the uplift in yearly support costs that come with it. I guess my question is this, is there a scenario where Jay's proposed pricing model would make using the exchange no longer financially viable for any the members that are following this thread? If so how and why and what specific change to his proposed model would change this? I hate to be the cold hearted capitalist here but I really don't want to see MICE fail because we death spiral on the details of the pricing model for another year. Also just a big thanks to USI (and Arista?) for the donation. This is not a small amount of hardware. I'm a bit behind the curve but I'm assuming the IX has cleared the hurdles for proper federal non-profit status now? I only ask as we sure don't want to have to pay taxes on the value of a 7504 with blades next April if we aren't yet and thus would need to stall on taking actual possession of the equipment until non-profit status is achieved. On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> wrote: > Think about the future. If Neutral Path were to be sold, the new owner may >> not have the same altruistic attitude that you have. And the exchange >> should be prepared by having the financial ability to move to another >> solution readily. >> >> > That's part of how the reserve is intended to be used. > > Jay > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: Google/YouTube Issues

by Steve Howard

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: Google/YouTube Issues

by Derek Poehls

Yeah, I think it's an issue with our peering - I preferred routes out my upstream in MPLS and my traceroute completes now (also using google-msp5) Thanks! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Derek Poehls NOC Supervisor/Senior Network Engineer (218) 284-5775 From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Justin Krejci Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 3:25 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Google/YouTube Issues No problems here on both v4 and v6 This will tell you from which cluster Youtube is serving your browser based on its network prefix http://redirector.c.youtube.com/report_mapping My v4 is going through MICE (google-msp5) My v6 is going through Chicago (ord38s05) We do not have bilateral BGP session with Google. ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Derek Poehls [dpoehls(a)702COMMUNICATIONS.COM] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 3:09 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Google/YouTube Issues Can anyone tell me if they are seeing issues with YouTube/Google today? We have bilateral peering with Google over MICE which is currently down, and customers that are unable to play videos. Also, I received a notification from Google's peering team saying that there are issues with the GGC in Minneapolis. The strange thing is that I'm writing this email, and not already reading a bunch of them that others have already sent... Perhaps it's because we have the bilateral peering set up and others don't? I have an email into them as well - just figured I'd see what others are seeing. Thanks! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [cid:image001.png@01D21D7D.C7577200] Derek Poehls NOC Supervisor/Senior Network Engineer (218) 284-5775 ________________________________ 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

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: Google/YouTube Issues

by Justin Krejci

No problems here on both v4 and v6 This will tell you from which cluster Youtube is serving your browser based on its network prefix http://redirector.c.youtube.com/report_mapping My v4 is going through MICE (google-msp5) My v6 is going through Chicago (ord38s05) We do not have bilateral BGP session with Google. ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Derek Poehls [dpoehls(a)702COMMUNICATIONS.COM] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 3:09 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Google/YouTube Issues Can anyone tell me if they are seeing issues with YouTube/Google today? We have bilateral peering with Google over MICE which is currently down, and customers that are unable to play videos. Also, I received a notification from Google’s peering team saying that there are issues with the GGC in Minneapolis. The strange thing is that I’m writing this email, and not already reading a bunch of them that others have already sent… Perhaps it’s because we have the bilateral peering set up and others don’t? I have an email into them as well – just figured I’d see what others are seeing. Thanks! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [cid:image001.png@01D21D7D.C7577200] Derek Poehls NOC Supervisor/Senior Network Engineer (218) 284-5775 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 1, 2016

Google/YouTube Issues

by Derek Poehls

Can anyone tell me if they are seeing issues with YouTube/Google today? We have bilateral peering with Google over MICE which is currently down, and customers that are unable to play videos. Also, I received a notification from Google's peering team saying that there are issues with the GGC in Minneapolis. The strange thing is that I'm writing this email, and not already reading a bunch of them that others have already sent... Perhaps it's because we have the bilateral peering set up and others don't? I have an email into them as well - just figured I'd see what others are seeing. Thanks! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [cid:image001.png@01D21D7D.C7577200] Derek Poehls NOC Supervisor/Senior Network Engineer (218) 284-5775

Dec. 1, 2016