- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Please welcome Communications 1 Network to MICE!

by Jeremy Lumby

Name: Communications 1 Network Switch: SouthFront Albert Lea Port: E 7/4 ASN: 394911 IPv4: 206.108.255.195/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:6:69F::1/64 Peering Contact: jkeiper(a)comm1net.net Route Servers: YES BFD: YES 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

May 19, 2022

Please welcome Bluepeak to MICE!

by Jeremy Lumby

Name: Bluepeak Switch: MICE Core Port: E6/23/1 ASN: 20412 IPv4: This is a port upgrade and name change from Vast Broadband, all IP info remains the same. The new connection will be 100G IPv6: Peering Contact: neteng(a)mybluepeak.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

May 11, 2022

Midwest Peering Summit 2022 Update

by Jay Hanke

As of last night, we have 80 attendees registered for the summer event. The event is free of charge to peering networks (or potentially peering networks). Pre Registration is required. You can register here: https://www.eventcreate.com/e/mwps2022 This is our discounted room block: https://reservations.travelclick.com/109230?groupID=3466891 We ask if your company is bringing sales folks that you purchase a table ($200) to help with costs. MWPS 2022 Sponsors/Exhibitors ------------------------------------ 1623 Farnam Arista Aureon 616 Bluebird Networks NocIX South Front Networks MWPS 2022 Exhibitors ------------------------------------ Aurora Fiber Optic Networks Great Plains Communications Heartland Technology Data Center Hurricane Electric Precision Group US Internet Vantage Point Solutions IX Attendees ------------------------------------ ChIX (Chicago IL) DesMoinesIX (Des Moines IA) Fiber Data Internet Exchange (Altoona, Indy, STL) KCIX (Kansas City MO) MICE (Minneapolis MN) OhioIX (Columbus OH) OmahaIX (Omaha NE) QCIX (Davenport) SiouxIX (Sioux City IA) SpringIX (Springfield MO) STLIX (St Louis MO) Attending Companies ------------------------------------ Amazon Prime Video ConnectDSM Fiber Minnesota FiberComm Involta Iowa Communication Network Google Fiber Key Cooperative Liberty Communications Mankato Networks Midco MTC Technologies MTC Communications (not the same) Ninja-IX Nuvera Optk OzarksGo RLM Underground SDN Communications Smartsource Consulting South Slope Cooperative Communications Stream Data Centers SupraNet Communications Unite Private Networks Vaultas WIN Winnebago Cooperative Telecom Association -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

May 9, 2022

Re: MICE Remote Switch Policy

by Richard Laager

On 5/6/22 13:02, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > I wanted to see where this ended up. The public discussion has been > open for a very long time. I would assume anyone who was going to > chime in by now would have. > Right. The consensus seems to be that this is not ministerial; the board should exercise discretion. As far as the particular criteria, the public comment didn't seem to generate a lot of detail there. > What has the board decided on? > In terms of remote switches generally, I modified the website a bit after the board's last discussion: -<li>The remote switch operator will provide a technical proposal to the board.</li> +<li>The remote switch operator will provide a proposal to the board addressing both technical and business details. Switches dedicated to MICE are quasi-required. Proposals should address expected participation. For example, does the operator have firm commitments from e.g. 5 participants?</li> As you can see, this is still relatively "squishy". We strengthened the dedicated switch thing, but it's hard to actually say it's "required" if we're still theoretically willing to make exceptions. There's also the bit about addressing whether they have participants lined up. The approval is still subject to board approval, and it's still subjective. Having 5 participants lined up does not guarantee approval, and having less than 5 does not guarantee rejection. As far as the NOCIX proposal specifically, we tabled that at the last meeting and asked for more information. We have that now, so we can pick this back up again for a decision. -- Richard

May 6, 2022

Re: MICE Remote Switch Policy

by Aaron Wendel

I was told that I needed 5 "quality" networks committed before I could get approval. That requirement is now on the MICE website as well. I have the following networks committed but I'm not sure if they qualify as the kind of networks the board is looking for. AS50058 August Internet AS34927 IFOG GMBH AS13737 INCX Global, LLC AS11708 KCFiber AS32097 Wholesale Internet AS14004 NOCIX AS55241 Xtracts AS17019 UnReal Servers 5 of these are on our SIX extension already and all are (obviously) KCIX peers. I haven't officially submitted this list to the board as I got sidetracked getting SIX online since that had some logistical challenges. (If you want cheap transport from KC to Seattle, Sprint is the way to go.) Now that it's live, I'd like to revisit the MICE extension so you're email is very timely. Aaron On 5/6/2022 1:02 PM, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > I wanted to see where this ended up. The public discussion has been > open for a very long time. I would assume anyone who was going to > chime in by now would have. What has the board decided on? > > *From:*Jeremy Lumby [mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 25, 2022 1:22 PM > *To:* MICE Discuss > *Subject:* RE: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Remote Switch Policy > > Precisely why I am a fan of something in the middle. The minimum > requirements will weed out the silly proposals and save time/effort. > The public discussion will bring up issues that should be considered, > and then the board can take the discussion, and use it to make a > decision. With this being said I would say if the minimums were met, > and there was no discussion, it should just be rubber stamped by the > board. There are plenty of people who know a lot about BGP/networking > on this list so there are plenty of opportunities to bring potential > issues to light. > > I have thought a lot about running an extension switch in Minneapolis > for an IX outside of North America. When you run the cost/benefit it > just does not make any sense. I think those things would come to > light in the public discussion phase. My personal opinion is anything > outside of North America just does not make sense for the “Midwest”. > The only reason that Cogent’s product does not fall on its face is > because it does not need to stand on its own. If Cogent was not > already in those locations with their other services, it would never > have made it out of the gate. Marketing is probably the only thing > keeping it alive. > > Jeremy > > *From:*MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] *On Behalf > Of *Reid Fishler > *Sent:* Thursday, March 24, 2022 11:53 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Remote Switch Policy > > The answer is somewhere in the middle. We do whats best for the > exchange, and for the internet in general. There are MANY things where > this is what was done by the community. Honest question...if someone > wants to put an extension in Rio, Brazil, do we let them? How about in > South Africa? Is there a line? An exchange has a purpose, and thats to > get everyone local to each other, on one fabric...otherwise we are > just making Cogents IX thing they sell, or any one of the number of > global fabrics. At SOME point we need to say enough is enough. I am > NOT saying we are there yet, but to allow EVERYTHING is a bit too much > in the other direction. > > Reid > > Reid > > On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 12:44 AM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > I completely agree that the number of people who know very little > about BGP is growing quickly, the real question is how do you deal > with this problem. Do you not permit things across the board > because of this, meaning that the opportunity is lost for the > people that understand what they are doing? Or do you put as many > reasonable precautions in place so that when someone screws up, it > mostly just impacts them, and all of the other members maintain > granular control? > > *From:*MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] *On > Behalf Of *Reid Fishler > *Sent:* Thursday, March 24, 2022 9:12 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Remote Switch Policy > > The issue is there are going to be more and more networks that are > buying these peering services that don't always know what they > are... Either by services, or because 'someone told me to'... Its > not always those in the know that buy these things... Sometimes > it's networks that DON'T know. > > Reid > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022, 10:04 PM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > I understand the point a little better now. I would say it > depends on the specific type of CDN. The more traditional > ones like Cloudflare and Akamai it would not be a huge > disincentive because they market themselves based on how > close/low latency they are to the end user. Other CDNs that > are delivering more of their own content like Netflix/Google > would be more grateful for the free transport, and care less > about the added latency (assuming no loss). > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On > Behalf Of Richard Laager > Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 8:46 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Remote Switch Policy > > On 3/24/22 18:00, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > As for a disincentive for CDN's to connect, I have only seen > the opposite. Most CDN's will only accept a connection to the > core. The only time I have seen them connect to a remote was > for a secondary connection to gain switch diversity. > > I wasn't talking about CDNs connecting to remotes. The > concern, or at > least how I understood it, was: Imagine we put a MICE > extension in city > X. In the immediate term, that's great, as now networks in > city X can > get content from Minneapolis CDNs. But in the longer-term, it > may create > a disincentive for CDNs to go to city X. > > Counter-point: Whether CDNs come to city X is not our problem. > > -- > Richard > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > <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 > <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1> > > > -- > > Reid Fishler > Senior 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 > <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 > <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1> > -- ================================================================ Aaron Wendel Chief Technical Officer Wholesale Internet, Inc. (AS 32097) (816)550-9030 http://www.wholesaleinternet.com ================================================================

May 6, 2022

Re: MICE Remote Switch Policy

by Jeremy Lumby

I wanted to see where this ended up. The public discussion has been open for a very long time. I would assume anyone who was going to chime in by now would have. What has the board decided on? From: Jeremy Lumby [mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com] Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 1:22 PM To: MICE Discuss Subject: RE: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Remote Switch Policy Precisely why I am a fan of something in the middle. The minimum requirements will weed out the silly proposals and save time/effort. The public discussion will bring up issues that should be considered, and then the board can take the discussion, and use it to make a decision. With this being said I would say if the minimums were met, and there was no discussion, it should just be rubber stamped by the board. There are plenty of people who know a lot about BGP/networking on this list so there are plenty of opportunities to bring potential issues to light. I have thought a lot about running an extension switch in Minneapolis for an IX outside of North America. When you run the cost/benefit it just does not make any sense. I think those things would come to light in the public discussion phase. My personal opinion is anything outside of North America just does not make sense for the “Midwest”. The only reason that Cogent’s product does not fall on its face is because it does not need to stand on its own. If Cogent was not already in those locations with their other services, it would never have made it out of the gate. Marketing is probably the only thing keeping it alive. Jeremy From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Reid Fishler Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 11:53 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Remote Switch Policy The answer is somewhere in the middle. We do whats best for the exchange, and for the internet in general. There are MANY things where this is what was done by the community. Honest question...if someone wants to put an extension in Rio, Brazil, do we let them? How about in South Africa? Is there a line? An exchange has a purpose, and thats to get everyone local to each other, on one fabric...otherwise we are just making Cogents IX thing they sell, or any one of the number of global fabrics. At SOME point we need to say enough is enough. I am NOT saying we are there yet, but to allow EVERYTHING is a bit too much in the other direction. Reid Reid On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 12:44 AM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: I completely agree that the number of people who know very little about BGP is growing quickly, the real question is how do you deal with this problem. Do you not permit things across the board because of this, meaning that the opportunity is lost for the people that understand what they are doing? Or do you put as many reasonable precautions in place so that when someone screws up, it mostly just impacts them, and all of the other members maintain granular control? From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Reid Fishler Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 9:12 PM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Remote Switch Policy The issue is there are going to be more and more networks that are buying these peering services that don't always know what they are... Either by services, or because 'someone told me to'... Its not always those in the know that buy these things... Sometimes it's networks that DON'T know. Reid On Thu, Mar 24, 2022, 10:04 PM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: I understand the point a little better now. I would say it depends on the specific type of CDN. The more traditional ones like Cloudflare and Akamai it would not be a huge disincentive because they market themselves based on how close/low latency they are to the end user. Other CDNs that are delivering more of their own content like Netflix/Google would be more grateful for the free transport, and care less about the added latency (assuming no loss). -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 8:46 PM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Remote Switch Policy On 3/24/22 18:00, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > As for a disincentive for CDN's to connect, I have only seen the opposite. Most CDN's will only accept a connection to the core. The only time I have seen them connect to a remote was for a secondary connection to gain switch diversity. I wasn't talking about CDNs connecting to remotes. The concern, or at least how I understood it, was: Imagine we put a MICE extension in city X. In the immediate term, that's great, as now networks in city X can get content from Minneapolis CDNs. But in the longer-term, it may create a disincentive for CDNs to go to city X. Counter-point: Whether CDNs come to city X is not our problem. -- 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 -- Reid Fishler Senior 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

May 6, 2022

Re: MICE Node for AS112

by David Farmer

I see the IPv4 routes now. Thanks On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 8:28 AM Isaiah Olson <iolson(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > Thanks for pointing this out. When this was originally set up, it looks > like I had set a limit of 100,000 routes for the IPv4 BGP sessions to the > MICE route servers, which we have now exceeded. I adjusted the limits and > reconfigured, and it looks like the routes for both protocols are present > on the looking glass again. > > Isaiah Olson > Network and Systems Administrator > Paul Bunyan Communications > 1831 Anne St NW > Bemidji, MN 56601 > (218) 444-4638 > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of David > Farmer > Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2022 11:14 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Node for AS112 > > I'm seeing IPv6 routes from the MICE Node for AS112, but not IPv4 routes > > > This is what the MICE Looking Glass sees; > > micemn-lg>sh bgp regexp _112_ > BGP table version is 103138859, local router ID is 206.108.255.250 > Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - > internal, > r RIB-failure, S Stale, m multipath, b backup-path, f > RT-Filter, > x best-external, a additional-path, c RIB-compressed, > Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete > RPKI validation codes: V valid, I invalid, N Not found > > Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path > * 192.31.196.0 206.108.255.52 255 0 6939 112 i > *> 206.108.255.52 255 0 6939 112 i > * 192.175.48.0 206.108.255.52 255 0 6939 112 i > *> 206.108.255.52 255 0 6939 112 i > micemn-lg>sh bgp ipv6 uni regexp _112_ > BGP table version is 165890313, local router ID is 206.108.255.250 > Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - > internal, > r RIB-failure, S Stale, m multipath, b backup-path, f > RT-Filter, > x best-external, a additional-path, c RIB-compressed, > Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete > RPKI validation codes: V valid, I invalid, N Not found > > Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path > *> 2001:4:112::/48 2001:504:27::70:0:1 > 0 112 i > * 2001:504:27::70:0:1 > 0 112 i > *> 2620:4F:8000::/48 > 2001:504:27::70:0:1 > 0 112 i > * 2001:504:27::70:0:1 > 0 112 i > micemn-lg> > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer mailto:Email%3Afarmer@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 > =============================================== > > ________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- =============================================== 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 ===============================================

May 5, 2022

Re: MICE Node for AS112

by Isaiah Olson

Thanks for pointing this out. When this was originally set up, it looks like I had set a limit of 100,000 routes for the IPv4 BGP sessions to the MICE route servers, which we have now exceeded. I adjusted the limits and reconfigured, and it looks like the routes for both protocols are present on the looking glass again. Isaiah Olson Network and Systems Administrator Paul Bunyan Communications 1831 Anne St NW Bemidji, MN 56601 (218) 444-4638 -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of David Farmer Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2022 11:14 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Node for AS112 I'm seeing IPv6 routes from the MICE Node for AS112, but not IPv4 routes This is what the MICE Looking Glass sees; micemn-lg>sh bgp regexp _112_ BGP table version is 103138859, local router ID is 206.108.255.250 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale, m multipath, b backup-path, f RT-Filter, x best-external, a additional-path, c RIB-compressed, Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete RPKI validation codes: V valid, I invalid, N Not found Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path * 192.31.196.0 206.108.255.52 255 0 6939 112 i *> 206.108.255.52 255 0 6939 112 i * 192.175.48.0 206.108.255.52 255 0 6939 112 i *> 206.108.255.52 255 0 6939 112 i micemn-lg>sh bgp ipv6 uni regexp _112_ BGP table version is 165890313, local router ID is 206.108.255.250 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale, m multipath, b backup-path, f RT-Filter, x best-external, a additional-path, c RIB-compressed, Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete RPKI validation codes: V valid, I invalid, N Not found Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 2001:4:112::/48 2001:504:27::70:0:1 0 112 i * 2001:504:27::70:0:1 0 112 i *> 2620:4F:8000::/48 2001:504:27::70:0:1 0 112 i * 2001:504:27::70:0:1 0 112 i micemn-lg> -- =============================================== David Farmer mailto:Email%3Afarmer@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 =============================================== ________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

May 5, 2022

MICE Node for AS112

by David Farmer

I'm seeing IPv6 routes from the MICE Node for AS112, but not IPv4 routes This is what the MICE Looking Glass sees; micemn-lg>sh bgp regexp _112_ BGP table version is 103138859, local router ID is 206.108.255.250 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale, m multipath, b backup-path, f RT-Filter, x best-external, a additional-path, c RIB-compressed, Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete RPKI validation codes: V valid, I invalid, N Not found Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path * 192.31.196.0 206.108.255.52 255 0 6939 112 i *> 206.108.255.52 255 0 6939 112 i * 192.175.48.0 206.108.255.52 255 0 6939 112 i *> 206.108.255.52 255 0 6939 112 i micemn-lg>sh bgp ipv6 uni regexp _112_ BGP table version is 165890313, local router ID is 206.108.255.250 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale, m multipath, b backup-path, f RT-Filter, x best-external, a additional-path, c RIB-compressed, Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete RPKI validation codes: V valid, I invalid, N Not found Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 2001:4:112::/48 2001:504:27::70:0:1 0 112 i * 2001:504:27::70:0:1 0 112 i *> 2620:4F:8000::/48 2001:504:27::70:0:1 0 112 i * 2001:504:27::70:0:1 0 112 i micemn-lg> -- =============================================== 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 ===============================================

May 5, 2022

Please welcome LTD Broadband. to MICE!

by Jeremy Lumby

Name: LTD Broadband Switch: South Front Networks Albert Lea Port: E9/1 ASN: 394330 IPv4: This is a port upgrade/move, all IP info remains the same. The new connection will be 100G IPv6: Peering Contact: coreyhauer(a)ltdbroadband.com Route Servers: No 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

May 3, 2022