August 2024 - mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

UG 46 Meeting & Election
by Richard Laager Oct. 8, 2025

Oct. 8, 2025

The MICE UG 46 meeting will be held Wednesday, October 9, 3:00 pm at UMN and via Zoom. Parking, etc. details same as before: https://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?A2=MICE-DISCUSS;2c503e19.2209 * * *Zoom Details* https://umn.zoom.us/j/97601658469?pwd=C6JWkmoYfB9WjZsnRPr9S5u1l4Zkuz.1 ID: 94910223662, passcode: Jp74Et 651-372-8299, meeting ID 97601658469, passcode 864193 * * *Nominations* We will be holding an election for a board seat. The board consists of three seats with staggered terms, such that one seat comes up for re-election each year (at the fall meeting). This year, Reid's seat is up for election. As in the past, we will close nominations in advance of the meeting so people have a chance to instruct a proxy appropriately. *Nominations will be open for two weeks, September 23 - October 6. *I plan to send reminder emails approximately at the start of and just after the nomination period. In the event that the election is uncontested, our practice is to elect by acclimation at the meeting. Proxies are unnecessary in that situation, assuming that the meeting makes quorum. *Proxies * The bylaws state that you send proxies to the Chief Manager (me, Richard Laager), and electronic means are acceptable. So a simple email is sufficient: rlaager(a)wiktel.com or chiefmanager(a)micemn.net. If you send me a /vote/ by email (e.g. "We vote for <X>."), I will treat it as an a proxy appointment, appointing me to vote on your behalf, but restricted to /only/ the election item and to /only/ vote for the candidate you expressed. If you send me a proxy with different instructions (e.g. "We appoint <Y> to vote for us."), obviously that will be honored as written. -- Richard

7 14

Please welcome Qwilt Inc. to MICE!
by Jeremy Lumby Oct. 7, 2025

Oct. 7, 2025

Name: Qwilt Inc. Switch: MICE Main Ports: 6/29/1 ASN: 20253 IPv4: 206.108.255.202/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:4F1D::1/64 Peering Contact: peering(a)qwilt.com Route Servers: YES BFD: NO Welcome Aboard! Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S #216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 Direct: 612-392-6814 Fax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

4 51

Please welcome T-Mobile USA, Inc to MICE!
by Jeremy Lumby Sept. 30, 2025

Sept. 30, 2025

Name: T-Mobile USA, Inc Switch: MICE Main Port: Ethernet 6/15/1 ASN: 21928 IPv4: This is a port addition to an existing LAG, all IP info remains the same. The new connection will be 3x100G IPv6: Peering Contact: peering(a)t-mobile.com Route Servers: Yes BFD: No Welcome Aboard Again! Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S #216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 Direct: 612-392-6814 Fax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

2 8

Please welcome Hiawatha Broadband Communications to MICE!
by Jeremy Lumby May 9, 2025

May 9, 2025

Name: Hiawatha Broadband Communications Switch: MICE Core Port: E5/41 ASN: 14828 IPv4: IPs remain the same. This is a port addition bringing capacity to 40G on portchannel 32 IPv6: Peering Contact: noc(a)hbci.com Route Servers: YES BFD: YES Welcome Aboard Again! Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S #216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 Direct: 612-392-6814 Fax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

3 21

Please welcome Express Data Solutions LLC to MICE!
by Jeremy Lumby Dec. 13, 2024

Dec. 13, 2024

Name: Express Data Solutions LLC Switch: MICE MAIN Port: Ethernet4/2 ASN: 31834 IPv4: 206.108.255.183/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:7C5A::1/64 Peering Contact: peering(a)express-ds.com Route Servers- Yes BFD: Yes Welcome Aboard! Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S #216 Bloomington, MN 55425 M: 612-355-7740 D: 612-392-6814 F: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

3 10

Re: [EXTERNAL] - Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX
by Jeremy Lumby Aug. 23, 2024

Aug. 23, 2024

I would be willing to bet if you looked just at the eyeball networks on MICE, 90% are getting the majority of their Google traffic across MICE, even if they have caches they are getting the fill across MICE in addition to the non cacheable traffic. Google's caches are not nearly as efficient as many of their competitors.I can confirm with over 10 years of experience dealing with Google that they are almost always very slow to upgrade.Jeremy LumbyMinnesota VoIP9217 17th Ave SSuite 216Bloomington MN 55425Main 612-355-7740Direct 612-392-6814EFax 952-873-7425jlumby(a)mnvoip.com -------- Original message --------From: Miles McCredie <Miles.McCredie(a)MIDCO.COM> Date: 8/23/24 6:34 AM (GMT-06:00) To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] - Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX Curious how many MICE members are in each of the following buckets. Receive limited portion of Google traffic via MICE Midco and, I assume, US Internet are in this bucket Receive a significant portion of Google traffic via MICE today I’ve only got a couple years of experience with Google for Midco but my experience has been that Google will not always provide the cache capacity that I think is appropriate. The last two augments were triggered 9-12 months later than I would have liked. Could be my fault for creating new GNLs but… Miles McCredie Principal Network Engineer II-Core IP Office: 6052755192 Miles.McCredie(a)midco.com Midco.com Let's go beyond. From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Justin Krejci Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 5:25 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX CAUTION: This email originated from outside of MIDCO. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am not sure what Google's stance is on deploying cache servers at an IX vs remote connection like the ones pending disconnection. If they were to deploy caching nodes at an IX, I assume they would still have a cache-fill requirement in terms of connectivity that has to come from somewhere... of which they appear to be disinterested in maintaining long distance connections going forward. So perhaps this is a donation opportunity for some to entice Google to deploy caching nodes at MICE? Donate local colo and transit bandwidth along with local MICE connectivity? We have numerous Google caching nodes in our network as well as multiple PNIs to Google, so their pending disconnect from MICE will likely have minimal direct impact on our eyeballs. -----Original Message----- From: Aaron Wendel <aaron(a)WHOLESALEINTERNET.NET> Reply-To: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 22:03:01 +0000 Has MICE requested a cache box from Google? ------ Original Message ------ From "Anthony Anderberg" <AnthonyAnderberg(a)NUVERA.NET> To MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Date 8/22/2024 4:28:18 PM Subject Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX I've been surprised that folks haven't been talking about this more and am curious about everyone's thoughts - as MICE user-members but also in terms of MICE leadership and direction. As a user-member I feel somewhat conflicted: on one hand in an effort to maximize performance I could obtain transport to Chicago and connect to Google there, but I feel like doing so is making Google's problem into my problem and that doing so undercuts the goals of MICE. We've seen content providers move MICE's larger members toward local direct private peering, and I can understand rational behind that even if it shifts traffic away from MICE - but Google is proposing remote direct peering at member's cost which feels different. Of course nobody expects Google to subsidize our corner of the world, I am just curious if there are other aspects we should be thinking about. Thanks in advance, Anthony On 8/22/24, 7:24 AM, "Google Peering Operations No-reply" <peering-ops-noreply(a)google.com <mailto:peering-ops-noreply@google.com>> wrote: Dear Peer, This is a reminder that peering with Google will no longer be available at MICE Internet Exchange from 16th of September. As a result of unsustainable overheads associated with connecting to an IX using remote waves, we have made a decision to stop connecting to IXs that way. MICE IX falls under the category of IXs we remotely connect to. We will withdraw prefixes on 16th of September, and disconnect from the IX on 24th of September. We realize this may cause inconvenience for some peers. If there is another mutually present IX that we can peer in, we will be happy to help set up a bilateral session there - no multilaterals. If there is no mutual IX, traffic may have to be exchanged via indirect paths (transit links). We are not looking to connect to any additional IXs to replace the IX that we are leaving, but if you are considering connecting to another IX and not sure if Google will also be leaving that IX because of this measure, please reach out to us and we can share more. Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely, Google Network Operations 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

4 4

Re: Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX
by Anthony Anderberg Aug. 23, 2024

Aug. 23, 2024

I've been surprised that folks haven't been talking about this more and am curious about everyone's thoughts - as MICE user-members but also in terms of MICE leadership and direction. As a user-member I feel somewhat conflicted: on one hand in an effort to maximize performance I could obtain transport to Chicago and connect to Google there, but I feel like doing so is making Google's problem into my problem and that doing so undercuts the goals of MICE. We've seen content providers move MICE's larger members toward local direct private peering, and I can understand rational behind that even if it shifts traffic away from MICE - but Google is proposing remote direct peering at member's cost which feels different. Of course nobody expects Google to subsidize our corner of the world, I am just curious if there are other aspects we should be thinking about. Thanks in advance, Anthony On 8/22/24, 7:24 AM, "Google Peering Operations No-reply" <peering-ops-noreply(a)google.com <mailto:peering-ops-noreply@google.com>> wrote: Dear Peer, This is a reminder that peering with Google will no longer be available at MICE Internet Exchange from 16th of September. As a result of unsustainable overheads associated with connecting to an IX using remote waves, we have made a decision to stop connecting to IXs that way. MICE IX falls under the category of IXs we remotely connect to. We will withdraw prefixes on 16th of September, and disconnect from the IX on 24th of September. We realize this may cause inconvenience for some peers. If there is another mutually present IX that we can peer in, we will be happy to help set up a bilateral session there - no multilaterals. If there is no mutual IX, traffic may have to be exchanged via indirect paths (transit links). We are not looking to connect to any additional IXs to replace the IX that we are leaving, but if you are considering connecting to another IX and not sure if Google will also be leaving that IX because of this measure, please reach out to us and we can share more. Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely, Google Network Operations

8 9

RFP: 511 IP Transit
by Richard Laager Aug. 23, 2024

Aug. 23, 2024

MICE is in need of IP transit at 511. This is for our management connection. We are looking for IPv4 + IPv6 transit delivered over a 1G copper (if in the same suite), 1G optical, or 10G optical. MICE will take care of the cross-connect. No BGP necessary. We need a /29 of IPv4 space and a /60 of IPv6 space. The current IP space is routed to us over a separate point-to-point (e.g. the /29 is over a /31 point-to-point). Our actual bandwidth usage is very minimal; 100 Mbps is more than plenty. Please specify the speed you are offering. I don't know that we have a specific term length in mind. Month-to-month, 1 year, or 3 year is probably fine. Please specify the term length(s) you are offering. You can reply off-list to Anthony Anderberg <AnthonyAnderberg(a)nuvera.net>. He intends NOT to bid on this. Conflict of interest note: My employer will bid on this. I will recuse from the board vote on it. -- Richard

1 0