mice-discuss

Download

By thread

mice-discuss@lists.micemn.net

December 2019

16 participants
32 messages

Re: WiscNet Remote Switch / Dedicated Remote Switches

by Steve Howard

Dec. 2, 2019

Re: WiscNet Remote Switch / Dedicated Remote Switches

by Andrew Hoyos

I’m in full support of WiscNet being able to add a remote switch here, even if it’s not dedicated. This seems like a 2nd switch in the mix just complicates things in the end, reading through below. If it boiled down to adding additional participants on a non dedicated switch, or nothing - my $0.02 would be to add the additional participants via the non-dedicated switch. This is really the same thing as what Northern Lights Gigapop is doing on MICE already (https://it.umn.edu/northern-lights-gigapop-introduction <https://it.umn.edu/northern-lights-gigapop-introduction>). I think R+E institutions need a bit of flexibility in this regard, given the scale and needs of their connectivity to other institutions. The board, IMHO, should have some flexibility to approve one-offs like this, even if policy is changed in the future. In the interim, it seems like the request should be evaluated using current rules/procedures (which seems like it’s board discretion at this point in time - current rules found on website posted below). Remote Switches If you are interested in operating a MICE remote switch, please contact peering(a)micemn.net <mailto:peering@micemn.net>. The process for connecting a new remote switch is as follows: The remote switch operator will provide a technical proposal to the board. The board will publish the proposal to the discussion list. After a reasonable comment period, the board will approve or deny the proposal. Remote switch operators’ obligations include (but are not necessarily limited to): Operators must obtain prior approval from the board for modifications. 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. Operators must enforce MICE’s technical port rules on their remote switches. Operators must coordinate participant connections and disconnections with MICE. MICE allocates exchange IP addresses and documents participant connections. Operators must inform their participants that the participants are not connecting directly to MICE. The remote switch operator cannot claim to be MICE. Operators must inform their participants that the participants are also subject to MICE rules, procedures, and costs. > On Nov 28, 2019, at 3:08 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > I realize I am sending this on a holiday. This does _not_ require > immediate attention; next week is fine. > > ---- > > WiscNet has proposed a remote switch. I'm forwarding their proposal to > the MICE-DISCUSS list per our procedure. You can find it at the bottom > of this message. If you have any feedback for the board, please share > on-list or off-list, as you prefer. Note that the listserv software sets > a Reply-To, so if you are trying to reply off-list, you will have to > _edit_ the To field in your reply. > > The interesting question from my perspective, which we discussed a bit > at the last UG, is whether MICE should require remote switches to be > dedicated to this purpose. It's my understanding that other exchanges, > e.g. SIX, have this requirement. The last few remote switches have all > been dedicated, so things had trended that way without it being an > official MICE policy. The WiscNet proposal is for a non-dedicated switch > which is bringing this question to the forefront. > > Requiring remote switches to be dedicated is intended to help protect > the MICE switching fabric. It would provide a clean demarcation point, > which is important for applying rules like one-MAC-per-port, etc. It > also reduces the chances of problems in practice due to clean > separation, less complexity of configuration, etc. > > Currently, the following remote switches are, to the best of my > knowledge, dedicated: > > Zayo (formerly Neutral Path) > Minnesota VoIP > South Front Networks > Compudyne > > The following remote switches are not dedicated: > CNS > > I'm not sure about the following, but they're probably not dedicated: > Mankato Networks > Northern Lights GigaPoP* > > * This is something we treat somewhat like a remote switch, but I > believe they pre-date the remote switch policy. > > Note that the non-dedicated switches are the original remote switches or > their direct successors. > > I believe the consensus at the last UG when we discussed this was that: > - Implicitly: We need to decide the policy. > - Either way, the policy needs to apply to all remote switches; i.e. > we don't reject some solely for being non-dedicated while accepting > others. > - If we require remotes to be dedicated, existing non-dedicated > switches need to be grandfathered for at least some amount of time. > Upgrades to new switches would end grandfathering. > > I do not feel confident saying there was a consensus on the actual > question of whether dedicated switches should be required or not. If you > feel I misjudged the consensus of the room in either direction, please > let me know. > > If a dedicated switch was required, WiscNet would have to add an > additional switch, which would look like this: > > [MICE Arista] > | > | 100G-LR4 > | > [WiscNet MICE Remote Switch ] * No VLANs, All Untagged > | | > | 100G-SR4 | 100G-SR4 > | | > | VLAN 123 | VLAN 456 > | untagged | untagged > [WiscNet Existing Switch] > | | > | existing | existing > | 100G-LR4 | 100G-LR4 > | | > [WiscNet MX] [Iowa MX] > > The VLAN IDs (123, 456) are made-up examples. > > We discussed this and other alternatives off-list. WiscNet is firmly > opposed to adding such an additional switch. If MICE requires dedicated > remote switches, WiscNet will not operate a remote switch. They will > still upgrade their connectivity to MICE to 100G, but Iowa and MERIT > will likely be left out (unless they decide to get their own MICE ports). > > I (and I assume the rest of the board) would also be especially > interested to hear from the other operators of non-dedicated remote > switches. Feel free to reply on-list or off-list at your option. > > As per the usual remote switch procedure, after there's been an > opportunity for comments, the next step is for the board to vote on the > WiscNet remote switch proposal. Approving this proposal implicitly > decides that non-dedicated switches are okay, at least for now. It is my > view that we should _explicitly_ decide the dedicated remote switch > question one way or another, so I will also ask for a board decision on > that, but I cannot _require_ such a decision individually, of course. > > There is no specific timeline on this, but if you have thoughts, please > share them as soon as possible. > > Finally, while this is already public knowledge, I'd like to > specifically disclose that my employer's connection to MICE is on the > CNS switch, a non-dedicated remote switch. > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: WiscNet - AS2381 - Mice Remote Switch > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:22:44 +0000 > From: Chris Wopat <wopat(a)wiscnet.net> > > Hi folks, sorry for the multi-week week delay in responding. > > I've attached a simplified diagram indicating how WiscNet would like to > connect to MICE. The diagram is separated by three phases- Current, > Proposed, Future. > > We are looking to transition from our current 10g connection via > University of Minnesota Gigapop, to a direct 100g connection from the > MICE core Arista switch to WiscNet's recently installed QFX10002. > > We would like to have the ability to share this connection with other > Research and Education organizations that may already connect to our > existing switch, as well as a few who may connect to it in the future. > > Known entities on the interested list are University of Iowa (AS3676) > and MERIT Network (AS237). This list may grow a little over time, but > it's likely that we'll be able to count this number entities on one hand. > > WiscNet is a non profit 501(c)(3) who per our bylaws > (https://www.wiscnet.net/bylaws) primarily serve educational > institutions and do not service commercial entities. > > When WiscNet recently reached out asking to become a MICE remote switch, > we were disappointed to hear that a recent(?) policy change was made > indicating that remote switches must be dedicated for MICE usage only. > > We will not be able to dedicate this device for MICE usage, nor would it > be cost effective to purchase a separate switch just for this purpose. > We're hoping that there's some middle category here where we're a switch > + our few research partners, similar to how a few entities are set up today. > > Cheers, > -- > Chris Wopat > Network Engineer, WiscNet > wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965 > <wiscnet minneapolis design mice.pdf>

Dec. 1, 2019