- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Private VLAN Service

by Reid Fishler

Added to agenda. On Oct 22, 2014 5:03 PM, "Hannigan, Martin" <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: > > > SInce we're on the subject of services, can we also add a PVLAN service? > > > > >

Oct. 22, 2014

Re: Fwd: [MICE-DISCUSS] Upcoming Elections

by Hannigan, Martin

Thanks. So effectively the conversation is dissolution of the LLC, not a conversion. Filing the 501c6 paperwork isn't hard. Or costly. OIXA paid a CPA $900 to assist and we did most of the work with respect to the questions: http://www.open-ix.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/OIXA_501c6.pdf The legal cost is standing up the corp. I believe _you can_ take donations for the purpose of the 501c6 formation as long as you have the corporation and an EIN in place. I am not positive that an LLC is compatible with a 501c6 filing, but that's why you need a lawyer. :) The other problem we have is anti-trust. Please feel free to use our policy. In fact, we'll have it modified to name your group if you'd like us to (OIX will, that is) http://www.open-ix.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/OIX_AntiTrust_Compliance.… We post everything there in including bylaws and articles. Feel free to use them to your hearts content. Best, -M< On Oct 22, 2014, at 5:59 PM, Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson(a)ARVIG.COM> wrote: > Resending Bylaws per our current discussion. > > s > > Shaun Carlson > Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig > ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > <Mankato Networks, LLC - Bylaws for Midwest Internet Cooperative Exchange, LLC.pdf><Mankato Networks, LLC - Organizational Resolutions for Midwest Internet Cooperative Exchange, LLC.pdf><Mankato Networks, LLC - Resignation of Sole Organizer - Midwest Internet Cooperative Exchange, LLC.pdf><Mankato Networks, LLC - Midwest Internet Cooperative Exchange, LLC resolution of organizer appointin.pdf>

Oct. 22, 2014

Private VLAN Service

by Hannigan, Martin

SInce we're on the subject of services, can we also add a PVLAN service?

Oct. 22, 2014

Fwd: [MICE-DISCUSS] Upcoming Elections

by Shaun Carlson

Resending Bylaws per our current discussion. s *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

Oct. 22, 2014

Webex Reminder for Meeting - Starting Now

by Shaun Carlson

*Remote Dial-in Info:* www.webex.com Meeting Number: 193 507 116 Meeting Password: MICEUG14 * Please try to have a web-cam hooked up to facilitate the best possible interaction. *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

Oct. 22, 2014

Meeting Agenda

by Shaun Carlson

See attached for meeting agenda. See you at 4! s *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

Oct. 22, 2014

Re: Discussion Topic Response : Community Lists

by Levi Pederson

Don't forget the advertisements! A man in loud polyester suit shouting into a bullhorn Thank you, *Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com> wrote: > I wonder if the intent, to borrow your you're analogy, is to allow each > person coming to the potluck to make the decision to not eat one particular > dish... > > s > > > > *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig > ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Levi Pederson < > levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net> wrote: > >> I will not be able to attend the UG meeting today but I would still like >> to respond to the discussion that is to take place during the meeting. >> >> This topic at hand is the decision to implement Community Strings in the >> Exchange. There have been a couple responses on this and the primary >> reasons stated is based on security from my understanding. >> >> I am opposed to this implementation. I believe the very idea of >> segregation in an Internet Exchange undermines the primary purpose of the >> exchange. We are here to make the internet better not honeycombed. >> >> The idea of segregation based on security is a bit odd to me. An >> allegorical situation would be the following : Invite multiple people over >> for a pot-luck dinner (BYO-Dish). Have someones kid break one said dish. >> Then have someone take ALL the food, secure in their house and grant >> access/monitor to specific pot-luck goers based entirely on their specific >> point of view. >> >> This process I feel will create too much segregation and deviate rather >> far from the ideological goal of the exchange. >> >> My thoughts on responses: >> >> 1. How can we continue to provide benefits and capabilities to new >> members or bgp sessions gone awry? >> a. We are currently implementing great layer 2 defenses and that is >> a great start. >> b. Create a list of best practices and configuration examples for >> connecting to the exchange as a community. >> >> Forgive the long post. Just my 2 cents on table tonight. >> >> Thank you, >> > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Oct. 22, 2014

Re: Discussion Topic Response : Community Lists

by Shaun Carlson

I wonder if the intent, to borrow your you're analogy, is to allow each person coming to the potluck to make the decision to not eat one particular dish... s *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Levi Pederson < levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net> wrote: > I will not be able to attend the UG meeting today but I would still like > to respond to the discussion that is to take place during the meeting. > > This topic at hand is the decision to implement Community Strings in the > Exchange. There have been a couple responses on this and the primary > reasons stated is based on security from my understanding. > > I am opposed to this implementation. I believe the very idea of > segregation in an Internet Exchange undermines the primary purpose of the > exchange. We are here to make the internet better not honeycombed. > > The idea of segregation based on security is a bit odd to me. An > allegorical situation would be the following : Invite multiple people over > for a pot-luck dinner (BYO-Dish). Have someones kid break one said dish. > Then have someone take ALL the food, secure in their house and grant > access/monitor to specific pot-luck goers based entirely on their specific > point of view. > > This process I feel will create too much segregation and deviate rather > far from the ideological goal of the exchange. > > My thoughts on responses: > > 1. How can we continue to provide benefits and capabilities to new > members or bgp sessions gone awry? > a. We are currently implementing great layer 2 defenses and that is > a great start. > b. Create a list of best practices and configuration examples for > connecting to the exchange as a community. > > Forgive the long post. Just my 2 cents on table tonight. > > Thank you, >

Oct. 22, 2014

Re: Discussion - Another BGP Community Viewpoint

by Andrew Hoyos

+1 on that. Fully support here, and I think a necessity for a growing IX. There are logical business and traffic engineering reasons for this sort of thing, and saves folks from having to go bilateral peer with everyone as the member count grows even higher. Here are some examples of how other exchanges have implemented this sort of thing. Equinix: https://ix.equinix.com/ixp/mlpeCommunityInfo <https://ix.equinix.com/ixp/mlpeCommunityInfo> LINX: https://www.linx.net/members/support/route-servers.html <https://www.linx.net/members/support/route-servers.html> -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Oct 22, 2014, at 1:52 PM, Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > I will not be able to attend the MICE UG meeting tonight. > > However, I would like to add my thoughts regarding route advertisement > control using BGP communities. > > I am strongly in favor of this capability being added to the route > servers. Specifically, I'd like to see the ability to block > advertisement to particular ASes or to prepend just to particular > AS(es). Perhaps something like Level3, Sprint, and others use: > > 65000:XXX - do not announce to AS XXX > 65001:XXX - prepend one AS to AS XXX > 65002:XXX - prepend two ASes to AS XXX > 65003:XXX - prepend three ASes to AS XXX > 65004:XXX - prepend four ASex to AS XXX > > I just had to block one customer's netblock at MICE because Netflix > traffic shifted in an undesirable manner yesterday. In this case, they > really just needed to prepend Netflix at MICE, but since that wasn't an > option they requested that we just block their netblock completely from > the MICE route servers. > > BGP Communities give individual MICE members the ability to control > their route advertisements to best suit their needs and routing policies > without having to block the MICE route servers completely.

Oct. 22, 2014

Re: MICE in the News

by Shaun Carlson

On Wednesday, October 22, 2014, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > I am at a loss for words after reading it J Actually so many things I > could say, that I do not even know where to begin. > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET');>] *On > Behalf Of *Anthony Anderberg > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2014 12:51 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET');> > *Subject:* [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE in the News > > > > I stumbled on this article that mentioned MICE, apparently we could be > part of some massive government conspiracy… also MICE takes up the whole > building now so I assume Mike and Al will be looking for office space > elsewhere. :-) > > > > > http://www.citylab.com/tech/2013/10/how-government-might-tap-physical-infra… > > > > > > > > *Anthony Anderberg* > > Sr. Systems Analyst > > [image: NUtel_email_logo_1] > > 320-234-5239 > > anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net');> > > *www.nutelecom.net <http://www.nutelecom.net>* > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > -- *Shaun Carlson*Senior Manager of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com

Oct. 22, 2014