September 2018 - mice-discuss

Re: Nanog?

by David Farmer

I'll be at NAMOG and ARIN Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 30, 2018, at 12:05, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)HE.NET> wrote: > > Whose coming? > This week, Vancouver. > > Reid > > > -- > Reid Fishler > Director > Hurricane Electric > +1-510-580-4178 > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 30, 2018

Nanog?

by Reid Fishler

Whose coming? This week, Vancouver. Reid -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

Sept. 30, 2018

Re: South Front Networks, LLC Remote switch request

by Jay Hanke

In the event of congestion or other techinical issue that is not able to be resolved in the stacked configuration with Mn VoIP, It is the understanding of SFN that SFN would be required to establish direct links. On Fri, Sep 28, 2018, 5:56 PM Justin Krejci <JKrejci(a)usinternet.com> wrote: > This falls into the category of extreme nit picking but the remote switch > website document says this > > > "Operators are responsible for the costs of operating their remote switch > and the links to the core switch. They must monitor their traffic levels > and promptly add capacity to keep the links running congestion-free." > > > Under this wording, SFN would be responsible for the links to the core > switch which would actually be on the MN VoIP switch link in this context > and is something I would expect is not within SFN's ability to manage > seeing as how SFN, presumably, does not manage MN VoIP's equipment or > links. > > As I initially stated, this is more nit picking as I would personally > interpret the intent of the message on the website to be "remote switch > operator egress link(s) towards the core switch" in this context since the > SFN switch would have no links of its own to the core switch. I expect the > context of tiered remote switches like this was not originally considered > when the text was composed/agreed upon and if this topology is permitted, I > would suggest the website language be updated to reflect/consider this. > > With my described interpretation, I have no objections to the tiered > remote-remote-switch setup. If this request is accepted as written, I would > suggest MICE consider capping this tiered remote switch approach at 2 > deep (as in this case) as a max; I feel it would begin to get cumbersome to > manage/track the administrative relationships, troubleshooting, managing > the traffic graphing configurations, etc. My cap suggestion is just a > starting point off, not something I am adamantly positioned on and possibly > this would be better discussed in a separate thread. > > I would also think it wise to look at MICE's big brother SIX and see if > they have encountered this kind of scenario/request before and if so, what > their conclusions were. > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of > Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> > *Sent:* Friday, September 28, 2018 3:31 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] South Front Networks, LLC Remote switch > request > > I'm bringing this remote switch request to the discussion list per our > remote switch policy: > http://micemn.net/technical.html > > On 09/28/2018 09:25 AM, Jay Hanke wrote: > > South Front Networks requests approval to install a MICE Remote Switch in > SFN's Albert Lea Datacenter. > > South Front proposes the following: > 1) SFN will acquire a Juniper QFX5100 or Arista comparable switch > dedicated to MICE. > 2) SFN will acquire and pay for any required connectivity back to the MN > VoIP remote switch, MN VoIP and SFN remote switches will share the existing > 40 Gbps MICE link into the main fabric. Both SFN and MN VoIP agree to > upgrade capacity as needed on the uplink to the main switch. > 3) SFN will initially install 20 Gbps of capacity and will upgrade > capacity as needed per the board and technical committee requirements > 4) SFN agrees to enforce the MICE technical port rules > 5) SFN agrees to coordinate connections to the new remote switch > 6) SFN agrees to inform all prospective members that connections going to > the SFN MICE Remote switch are not connected directly to MICE. > 7) SFN agrees to perform any required configuration and troubleshooting > 8) SFN agrees to provide configuration access and snmp access to the MICE > technical committee to ease troubleshooting and to provide publicly > available graphing. > > Thanks! > > -- > Jay Hanke, President > South Front Networks > jayhanke(a)southfront.io > Phone 612-204-0000 > > -- > Richard > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 >

Sept. 29, 2018

South Front Networks, LLC Remote switch request

by Richard Laager

I think that SFN is responsible to ensure congestion-free capacity all the way back to the core switch. MN VoIP is separately responsible for ensuring congestion-free capacity from its remote to the core, but in the worst case scenario where MN VoIP failed to upgrade its links, I would argue that SFN still has a separate obligation to remedy the congestion to their switch, by switching to direct links if necessary. This is all hopefully theoretical, of course. This proposal has MN VoIP's cooperation and re-affirmed commitment to upgrade as needed. -- Richard

Sept. 29, 2018

Re: South Front Networks, LLC Remote switch request

by Justin Krejci

This falls into the category of extreme nit picking but the remote switch website document says this "Operators are responsible for the costs of operating their remote switch and the links to the core switch. They must monitor their traffic levels and promptly add capacity to keep the links running congestion-free." Under this wording, SFN would be responsible for the links to the core switch which would actually be on the MN VoIP switch link in this context and is something I would expect is not within SFN's ability to manage seeing as how SFN, presumably, does not manage MN VoIP's equipment or links. As I initially stated, this is more nit picking as I would personally interpret the intent of the message on the website to be "remote switch operator egress link(s) towards the core switch" in this context since the SFN switch would have no links of its own to the core switch. I expect the context of tiered remote switches like this was not originally considered when the text was composed/agreed upon and if this topology is permitted, I would suggest the website language be updated to reflect/consider this. With my described interpretation, I have no objections to the tiered remote-remote-switch setup. If this request is accepted as written, I would suggest MICE consider capping this tiered remote switch approach at 2 deep (as in this case) as a max; I feel it would begin to get cumbersome to manage/track the administrative relationships, troubleshooting, managing the traffic graphing configurations, etc. My cap suggestion is just a starting point off, not something I am adamantly positioned on and possibly this would be better discussed in a separate thread. I would also think it wise to look at MICE's big brother SIX and see if they have encountered this kind of scenario/request before and if so, what their conclusions were. ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 3:31 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] South Front Networks, LLC Remote switch request I'm bringing this remote switch request to the discussion list per our remote switch policy: http://micemn.net/technical.html On 09/28/2018 09:25 AM, Jay Hanke wrote: South Front Networks requests approval to install a MICE Remote Switch in SFN's Albert Lea Datacenter. South Front proposes the following: 1) SFN will acquire a Juniper QFX5100 or Arista comparable switch dedicated to MICE. 2) SFN will acquire and pay for any required connectivity back to the MN VoIP remote switch, MN VoIP and SFN remote switches will share the existing 40 Gbps MICE link into the main fabric. Both SFN and MN VoIP agree to upgrade capacity as needed on the uplink to the main switch. 3) SFN will initially install 20 Gbps of capacity and will upgrade capacity as needed per the board and technical committee requirements 4) SFN agrees to enforce the MICE technical port rules 5) SFN agrees to coordinate connections to the new remote switch 6) SFN agrees to inform all prospective members that connections going to the SFN MICE Remote switch are not connected directly to MICE. 7) SFN agrees to perform any required configuration and troubleshooting 8) SFN agrees to provide configuration access and snmp access to the MICE technical committee to ease troubleshooting and to provide publicly available graphing. Thanks! -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io<mailto:jayhanke@southfront.io> Phone 612-204-0000 -- Richard ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 28, 2018

Re: South Front Networks, LLC Remote switch request

by Richard Laager

I'm bringing this remote switch request to the discussion list per our remote switch policy: http://micemn.net/technical.html On 09/28/2018 09:25 AM, Jay Hanke wrote: > South Front Networks requests approval to install a MICE Remote Switch > in SFN's Albert Lea Datacenter. > > South Front proposes the following: > 1) SFN will acquire a Juniper QFX5100 or Arista comparable switch > dedicated to MICE. > 2) SFN will acquire and pay for any required connectivity back to the > MN VoIP remote switch, MN VoIP and SFN remote switches will share the > existing 40 Gbps MICE link into the main fabric. Both SFN and MN VoIP > agree to upgrade capacity as needed on the uplink to the main switch. > 3) SFN will initially install 20 Gbps of capacity and will upgrade > capacity as needed per the board and technical committee requirements > 4) SFN agrees to enforce the MICE technical port rules > 5) SFN agrees to coordinate connections to the new remote switch > 6) SFN agrees to inform all prospective members that connections going > to the SFN MICE Remote switch are not connected directly to MICE. > 7) SFN agrees to perform any required configuration and troubleshooting > 8) SFN agrees to provide configuration access and snmp access to the > MICE technical committee to ease troubleshooting and to provide > publicly available graphing. > > Thanks! > > -- > Jay Hanke, President > South Front Networks > jayhanke(a)southfront.io <mailto:jayhanke@southfront.io> > Phone 612-204-0000 -- Richard

Sept. 28, 2018

Re: Role email accounts on the list

by Steve Howard

Sept. 28, 2018

Re: Role email accounts on the list

by Jay Hanke

As long as they don't open a new ticket for each email it's no problem for me. DISCUSS is the best place to know what's going for a NOC for MICE issues. On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 11:23 AM Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)geeks.org> wrote: > How do people feel about this? > > We just had someone join the list using a noc@ email address. > > -- > Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG > -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Sept. 28, 2018

Role email accounts on the list

by Mike Horwath

How do people feel about this? We just had someone join the list using a noc@ email address. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 28, 2018

Re: UG 29 Meeting & Election

by Dean Bahls

Hey, you still have to earn votes! Shaking hands, kissing babies, making campaign promises you can’t fulfill. Too bad we’ll miss out on the negative ads on WCCO…. Dean From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Reid Fishler Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 9:30 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] UG 29 Meeting & Election I dont get to make a can with my own face, and make a speech? Darn! :-) Thanks everyone! Reid On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 9:52 AM Michael Hemphill <mikeh(a)coloconnect.net <mailto:mikeh@coloconnect.net> > wrote: Congrats Reid! You bring a global perspective to the board and along with your involvement with other exchanges you are invaluable to MICE. Thanks for your service to the MICE Community! Mike Mike Hemphill ColoConnect 612-812-5242 mikeh(a)ColoConnect.net <mailto:mikeh@ColoConnect.net> http://www.ColoConnect.net/ -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> ] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 3:29 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] UG 29 Meeting & Election On 09/24/2018 10:48 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > A member pointed out that it is hard to instruct a proxy without knowing > the final slate of candidates. Accordingly, we will close nominations at > 5:00 PM Central on this Thursday, September 27. Following that, I will > send another email confirming the final slate of candidates. Having heard no other nominations, the final slate of candidates is: - Reid Fishler -- Richard -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178 _____ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1> &A=1

Sept. 28, 2018