- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Jay's Third proposal

by Brian Mort

While that helps move towards V6 how does that solve the issue of keeping equipment up to date? On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Owen DeLong <owend(a)he.net> wrote: > Here's a thought from the resident IPv6 evangelist... > > Charge a participation fee for IPv4-only peering, but offer a reduced fee > for dual-stack! > > Owen > > On Jul 23, 2012, at 6:36 PM, David Farmer wrote: > > > I like the $250 a year for everyone, but call it a participation fee, it > includes both your IPv4 and IPv6 address and your vote, If they wish it > can include their first 1G port or they can participate through a > connection to remote switch. I'd even suggest waving the first year's > $250, that lets people really see the benefit or not before hitting them up > with an invoice. Also, additional IPs could be $250 a year, but only one > vote per Org. connecting. That way there is no incentive for connections > to remote switch to not be full voting participants. > > > > I like the Idea of those that are clearly getting more value, those > going for the 2nd GigE or a 10G paying a bit more. For sake of discussion > lets say when you are sustaining 500Mb daily peak on the GigE you upgrade > to a second or to 10G. A good price for 500Mb burstable or a 1G port is > about $1000 a month. So an additional $1000 a year for a second 1G or > $2000 a year for 10G is still a good deal compared to transit costs. > > > > If you want to make that $2500 for 2nd GigE and $5000 for 10G port for > the life time of the switch (3 years or more) I'd be fine with that, too > But, if you make it one time without any refresh we will have problems > later. > > > > The Cologix corss-connect fees are still going to be the dominant > expense for most people. > > > > Remember Metcalfe's law; > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law > > > > The benefit of a number of of small guys connecting may be worth more to > the rest of us that to themselves. Having those that see clear benefit > contribute more makes sense, while still having some minimal contribution > from everyone. I wouldn't > > > > On 7/23/12 17:17 CDT, Jay Hanke wrote: > >> After a bunch of discussion both on and off the list, my thinking has > >> changed a little bit. > >> > >> I liked the lump payment with 10G ports idea that Mr Hoyos brought > >> forward. Also, I like the idea of everyone paying "something". > >> > >> Assuming free colo for long term (3-5 years) > >> > >> So how about the $5000 payment for new 10G ports on the main switch > >> and $250 annually for each IP assignment on the fabric regardless of > >> access method (be it remote or main switch). > >> > >> > > > > -- > > =============================================== > > 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 > > =============================================== > > > > ######################################################################## > > > > 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 > -- Brian Mort Network Engineer IV (ENA,ENS,ECDP) visit our website: arvig <http://www.arvig.com> (218) 346-8231 brian.mort(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

July 24, 2012

Re: Jay's Third proposal

by Owen DeLong

Here's a thought from the resident IPv6 evangelist... Charge a participation fee for IPv4-only peering, but offer a reduced fee for dual-stack! Owen On Jul 23, 2012, at 6:36 PM, David Farmer wrote: > I like the $250 a year for everyone, but call it a participation fee, it includes both your IPv4 and IPv6 address and your vote, If they wish it can include their first 1G port or they can participate through a connection to remote switch. I'd even suggest waving the first year's $250, that lets people really see the benefit or not before hitting them up with an invoice. Also, additional IPs could be $250 a year, but only one vote per Org. connecting. That way there is no incentive for connections to remote switch to not be full voting participants. > > I like the Idea of those that are clearly getting more value, those going for the 2nd GigE or a 10G paying a bit more. For sake of discussion lets say when you are sustaining 500Mb daily peak on the GigE you upgrade to a second or to 10G. A good price for 500Mb burstable or a 1G port is about $1000 a month. So an additional $1000 a year for a second 1G or $2000 a year for 10G is still a good deal compared to transit costs. > > If you want to make that $2500 for 2nd GigE and $5000 for 10G port for the life time of the switch (3 years or more) I'd be fine with that, too But, if you make it one time without any refresh we will have problems later. > > The Cologix corss-connect fees are still going to be the dominant expense for most people. > > Remember Metcalfe's law; > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law > > The benefit of a number of of small guys connecting may be worth more to the rest of us that to themselves. Having those that see clear benefit contribute more makes sense, while still having some minimal contribution from everyone. I wouldn't > > On 7/23/12 17:17 CDT, Jay Hanke wrote: >> After a bunch of discussion both on and off the list, my thinking has >> changed a little bit. >> >> I liked the lump payment with 10G ports idea that Mr Hoyos brought >> forward. Also, I like the idea of everyone paying "something". >> >> Assuming free colo for long term (3-5 years) >> >> So how about the $5000 payment for new 10G ports on the main switch >> and $250 annually for each IP assignment on the fabric regardless of >> access method (be it remote or main switch). >> >> > > -- > =============================================== > 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 > =============================================== > > ######################################################################## > > 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

July 24, 2012

3rd Proposal Model

by Jay Hanke

http://mankatonetworks.com/wordpress/?p=262 This is the 3rd proposal model. I added legal fees and dropped back to 1 EX4500 switch rather than 2. -- Jay Hanke CTO, CCIE #19093 Mankato Networks LLC PO Box 54 619 S Front St Mankato, MN 56001-3838 Google 530-618-2398 jayhanke(a)mankatonetworks.net http://www.mankatonetworks.com ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

July 24, 2012

Re: Jay's Third proposal

by David Farmer

I like the $250 a year for everyone, but call it a participation fee, it includes both your IPv4 and IPv6 address and your vote, If they wish it can include their first 1G port or they can participate through a connection to remote switch. I'd even suggest waving the first year's $250, that lets people really see the benefit or not before hitting them up with an invoice. Also, additional IPs could be $250 a year, but only one vote per Org. connecting. That way there is no incentive for connections to remote switch to not be full voting participants. I like the Idea of those that are clearly getting more value, those going for the 2nd GigE or a 10G paying a bit more. For sake of discussion lets say when you are sustaining 500Mb daily peak on the GigE you upgrade to a second or to 10G. A good price for 500Mb burstable or a 1G port is about $1000 a month. So an additional $1000 a year for a second 1G or $2000 a year for 10G is still a good deal compared to transit costs. If you want to make that $2500 for 2nd GigE and $5000 for 10G port for the life time of the switch (3 years or more) I'd be fine with that, too But, if you make it one time without any refresh we will have problems later. The Cologix corss-connect fees are still going to be the dominant expense for most people. Remember Metcalfe's law; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metcalfe%27s_law The benefit of a number of of small guys connecting may be worth more to the rest of us that to themselves. Having those that see clear benefit contribute more makes sense, while still having some minimal contribution from everyone. I wouldn't On 7/23/12 17:17 CDT, Jay Hanke wrote: > After a bunch of discussion both on and off the list, my thinking has > changed a little bit. > > I liked the lump payment with 10G ports idea that Mr Hoyos brought > forward. Also, I like the idea of everyone paying "something". > > Assuming free colo for long term (3-5 years) > > So how about the $5000 payment for new 10G ports on the main switch > and $250 annually for each IP assignment on the fabric regardless of > access method (be it remote or main switch). > > -- =============================================== 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 =============================================== ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

July 24, 2012

Re: Jay's Third proposal

by Anthony Anderberg

Having joined the thoughtful discussion late I don't have too much to add but feel that we've certainly gotten to the point where it isn't fair to expect Jay to go around with hat-in-hand hoping for donations to keep us moving forward. I think this third proposal might be our best plan at the moment, everyone will be contributing to their share of reoccurring costs and it covers our biggest capital cost (10G ports) without getting too complicated for commodity 1G connections. We can try this sort of model and see how the math works out, if it doesn't cover our costs we can always opt for something more complicated. Additionally it's unlikely to generate a bank balance large enough to deter donations or make us look like anything more than we are. Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 5:17 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Jay's Third proposal After a bunch of discussion both on and off the list, my thinking has changed a little bit. I liked the lump payment with 10G ports idea that Mr Hoyos brought forward. Also, I like the idea of everyone paying "something". Assuming free colo for long term (3-5 years) So how about the $5000 payment for new 10G ports on the main switch and $250 annually for each IP assignment on the fabric regardless of access method (be it remote or main switch). -- Jay Hanke CTO, CCIE #19093 Mankato Networks LLC PO Box 54 619 S Front St Mankato, MN 56001-3838 Google 530-618-2398 jayhanke(a)mankatonetworks.net http://www.mankatonetworks.com ######################################################################## 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

July 24, 2012

Jay's Third proposal

by Jay Hanke

After a bunch of discussion both on and off the list, my thinking has changed a little bit. I liked the lump payment with 10G ports idea that Mr Hoyos brought forward. Also, I like the idea of everyone paying "something". Assuming free colo for long term (3-5 years) So how about the $5000 payment for new 10G ports on the main switch and $250 annually for each IP assignment on the fabric regardless of access method (be it remote or main switch). -- Jay Hanke CTO, CCIE #19093 Mankato Networks LLC PO Box 54 619 S Front St Mankato, MN 56001-3838 Google 530-618-2398 jayhanke(a)mankatonetworks.net http://www.mankatonetworks.com ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

July 23, 2012

Re: Juniper Upgrade

by Mike Horwath

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 02:46:37PM -0500, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > On Jul 23, 2012, at 2:20 PM, Jay Hanke wrote: > > >> I think you have to consider what bandwidth can be had for today at 511, and > >> that is sub $1/meg. If the cost of the port plus cross connect exceeds what > >> a member can buy bandwidth for it may be hard to justify being a member. > > > > Cross connects being the same for transit and peering. > > > > MICE Pricing > > > > 10000 Mb/s for $750= $0.075 per mb/s > > 1000 Mb/s for $200= $0.20 per mb/s > > That's assuming you're doing a full GigE on MICE. > > For smaller folks, who are only doing 25-50-100mbps on the exchange, > this quickly exceeds the price of transit. I've still got the Cisco 4500 sitting here. I'll subsidize the port fees on it FOREVER. But you wanna connect to core then pay core rates. <snicker> -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau(a)iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkeley Fortune ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

July 23, 2012

Re: Juniper Upgrade

by Owen DeLong

Sent from my iPad On Jul 23, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)AITECH.NET> wrote: > On Jul 23, 2012, at 1:46 PM, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Uh, no... Not annually. Those are the one time fees (actually $1250 for the IPv4 and another $1250 for the IPv6, >> plus $500 for the ASN), but all of those roll into $100 per year in maintenance fees to ARIN. > > > For anyone who's been "grandfathered" in (back in the good old days when all you had to do was justify)-- you pay $100 per year for maintenance, and that's it. Sort of... If you got "grandfathered" and haven't signed an LRSA to protect your resource status with ARIN, you don't pay anything even today. If you got "grandfathered" and have signed an LRSA or RSA, you pay $100 per year. If you are not "grandfathered", you paid a one-time fee when your assignment was issued and then you pay $100/year if you are an end-user (an exchange point is, to the best of my knowledge, an end-user for fee purposes). > So if you got your 6 "Class B" networks back in 1993, and still have them today-- you pay ARIN a grand total of $100 per year. > > If you got your /22 last year (like myself), then you pay $1,250 per year. > That's for an ISP -- You are an ISP. There are different fees for ISPs than for end-users. Trust me, I am _VERY_ familiar with ARIN policies and fees. Owen > ~Matthew > > ######################################################################## > > 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

July 23, 2012

Re: Juniper Upgrade

by Jay Hanke

On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net> wrote: > The only problem I see with this is there is a slightly large hump for > smaller ISP's to go over when they FIRST want to join and don't yet know the > benefit... I think the 1st GE is free, if you need a second you're running a lot of traffic. In this option I'd advocate charging the full 5k for adding a 2nd GE as well to encourage 10G rather than multiple 1Gs. Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

July 23, 2012

Re: Juniper Upgrade

by Reid Fishler

The only problem I see with this is there is a slightly large hump for smaller ISP's to go over when they FIRST want to join and don't yet know the benefit... Reid On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 23, 2012, at 3:37 PM, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > > >> Actually, I think he's advocating charging a 5k setup fee for each 10G > >> ports, not the current model of no charges ever. > > > > > > Correct - my two cents on why this model works better: > > > > a.) folks that are doing the traffic warranting hardware upgrades (ie: > folks w/ 10G ports) are responsible for the cost (and they are deriving > more benefit for their $). > > b.) non-recurring costs are a much easier sell to $MGMT (at least in my > experience) > > c.) it keeps the entry cost into the IX low (xconnect + SFP) to > encourage more participants. > > > > I guess this is all assuming that the MICE recurring expenses would > either be mostly covered by monetary donations, or in-kind by providers of > those services. Any $ coming in from port costs mostly gets used for > hardware upgrades as needed + a reserve. > > Also, > > d.) keeps administrative burden low - no processing monthly invoices, > payments, etc. > > ######################################################################## > > 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 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

July 23, 2012