- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: SIX Lowers Fees

by Shaun Carlson

Thanks for all of your work getting this wrapped up Richard! s Shaun Carlson Director of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346.8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:44 AM -0500, "Richard Laager" <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: Non-profit filing will hopefully happen next week, if I get everything done with the MN Secretary of State's office in time. I am currently waiting for them to accept a filing, and then I need to request certified copies of the Articles of Incorporation. Otherwise, I'm out of the country for a couple weeks, so it'll happen when I get back. I have no idea how long the IRS will take or if there is a serious risk of rejection. I definitely think we need to figure some plan for fees. -- Richard

Oct. 18, 2016

Re: SIX Lowers Fees

by Richard Laager

Non-profit filing will hopefully happen next week, if I get everything done with the MN Secretary of State's office in time. I am currently waiting for them to accept a filing, and then I need to request certified copies of the Articles of Incorporation. Otherwise, I'm out of the country for a couple weeks, so it'll happen when I get back. I have no idea how long the IRS will take or if there is a serious risk of rejection. I definitely think we need to figure some plan for fees. -- Richard

Oct. 18, 2016

SIX Lowers Fees

by Justin Krejci

I feel SIX is like a big brother that MICE looks up to so I would like to point out that SIX is lowering their port fees due to their success of membership growth. What a good problem, we're taking in so much money we'd like to drop our fees significantly. https://www.seattleix.net/pr20160930 As the MICE fee structure is still not implemented or even decided yet, I'd like to hit the beehive a little and see if there is any progress to that end. I am sure that MICE as a non non-profit could still take in money and then also spend that money without much challenge to avoid any serious taxation concerns, assuming the non-profit work continues to stall for more months or years (unless someone wants to share good news in this regard). Can the board set a goal or target for us to strive towards as an organization? Maybe we need a little tyranny to get things going in this regard? This can has been kicked down the road so many times, it's not even recognizable as a can anymore. :) Food for thought.

Oct. 18, 2016

MICE In the News

by Charles Monson

I was made aware Yahoo Finance posted a brief article yesterday about MICE. I didn't see it posted to the list yet, but figured a few people may be interested in reading it. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/midwest-internet-cooperative-exchange-mice-13… Charles

Oct. 12, 2016

DocuMNtray

by David Farmer

This is a great DocuMNtray about the Minnesota Tech Industry both historic and where it going in the future. http://www.documntary.com/ We should have a like to this on the MICE page. -- =============================================== 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 ===============================================

Oct. 11, 2016

Minutes

by Richard Laager

Did anyone take minutes at the last user group meeting? If so, can I get a copy of the draft minutes for the website? -- Richard

Oct. 10, 2016

Re: BFD support on BGP sessions

by Andrew Hoyos

> > On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:07 PM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 7, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)IPHOUSE.NET> wrote: >> >> protocol bfd { >> interface "bce1" { >> min rx interval 20 ms; >> min tx interval 50 ms; >> idle tx interval 300 ms; >> passive; >> }; >> neighbor 206.108.255.3; >> neighbor 206.108.255.4; >> neighbor 206.108.255.5; >> neighbor 206.108.255.6; >> neighbor 206.108.255.7; >> neighbor 206.108.255.8; >> .... >> } > > Based on http://bird.network.cz/?get_doc&f=bird-6.html, I’d suggest something a bit less aggressive like 500ms x 3. I know a number of us here are using similar timer settings with good luck. idle tx would seem to not be required since it’s in passive mode (so it won’t send packets to a neighbor until it gets one first) > > protocol bfd { > interface "bce1" { > interval 500 ms; > multiplier 3 > passive; > }; And for the neighbors, you’d want to tie these to the BGP sessions rather than creating direct sessions inside 'protocol bfd'. If you add the ‘bfd’ switch to BGP sessions, it will dynamically create the BFD sessions, and tie BGP state to BFD. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Oct. 7, 2016

Re: BFD support on BGP sessions

by Andrew Hoyos

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 4:47 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)IPHOUSE.NET> wrote: > > protocol bfd { > interface "bce1" { > min rx interval 20 ms; > min tx interval 50 ms; > idle tx interval 300 ms; > passive; > }; > neighbor 206.108.255.3; > neighbor 206.108.255.4; > neighbor 206.108.255.5; > neighbor 206.108.255.6; > neighbor 206.108.255.7; > neighbor 206.108.255.8; > .... > } Based on http://bird.network.cz/?get_doc&f=bird-6.html, I’d suggest something a bit less aggressive like 500ms x 3. I know a number of us here are using similar timer settings with good luck. idle tx would seem to not be required since it’s in passive mode (so it won’t send packets to a neighbor until it gets one first) protocol bfd { interface "bce1" { interval 500 ms; multiplier 3 passive; }; -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Oct. 7, 2016

Re: BFD support on BGP sessions

by Doug McIntyre

On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 04:30:22PM -0500, James Stahr wrote: > For MICE though, it would be *great* if one of the route servers could be > setup with BFD support that way everyone could benefit and withdraw routes > faster once it was rolled out to both. It still wouldn't insure that A can > talk directly to B, only bilateral peering can solve that. BIRD appears to > have a "passive" setting for it too, so it wouldn't try to do BFD unless the > other side initiated. So, something like this? protocol bfd { interface "bce1" { min rx interval 20 ms; min tx interval 50 ms; idle tx interval 300 ms; passive; }; neighbor 206.108.255.3; neighbor 206.108.255.4; neighbor 206.108.255.5; neighbor 206.108.255.6; neighbor 206.108.255.7; neighbor 206.108.255.8; .... } And then likewise for the IPv6 daemon? -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 7, 2016

Re: BFD support on BGP sessions

by James Stahr

On 10/04/2016 8:35 PM, Michael Hare wrote: > Call it a Madison thing; AS 3128 would also like to BFD peer with interested parties. I like Andrew's "Y/N" column idea. > > -Michael > +1 on all counts.. For any of the folks also at MadIX, I'll do BFD with you there as well. Can we add BFD as a column on its' KB as well? For MICE though, it would be *great* if one of the route servers could be setup with BFD support that way everyone could benefit and withdraw routes faster once it was rolled out to both. It still wouldn't insure that A can talk directly to B, only bilateral peering can solve that. BIRD appears to have a "passive" setting for it too, so it wouldn't try to do BFD unless the other side initiated. -James > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Colin Baker > Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 4:21 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] BFD support on BGP sessions > > On 04.10.2016 16:09, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > >> +1 to this. We (AS53597) will happy enable BFD to anyone that >> supports. Shoot us an email at noc(a)hoyosconsulting.com. >> >> Perhaps we can add a column to the participants page for a Y/N flag >> there? >> >> > Meee tooo > > Email peering(a)supranet.net (AS4150) and we'll be happy to get this > added. > >

Oct. 7, 2016