- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

MICE Remote Switch Policy
by Richard Laager 06 May '22

06 May '22

I've had some discussions with the board as well as with Jay and Jeremy on these topics. The board consensus was to bring this (in general) to the membership for more input. As to the specifics, while I know others agree with at least parts of this, I'm only speaking for myself here. I'll let everyone articulate their own positions. (This disclaimer should not be read as me signaling the existance of disagreement either. I just don't want to put words in other people's mouths.) Our current policy on remote switches is here: https://micemn.net/technical.html#remotes It has the proposal presented to the membership for discussion, then the board makes a final decision. Is this decision ministerial or discretionary? That is, if the remote switch proposal checks all the boxes in our policy, is MICE "required" (supposed to) always grant it, or is the board supposed to apply some discretion? If the decision is ministerial, then why bother bringing this to the board (or for that matter, the members) all? Couldn't we save a bunch of time and hassle and simply have management (in some form, whether that's me, Jay, and/or Jeremy) approve it? If the decision is discretionary, are there particular criteria that the board should consider (above and beyond the listed criteria)? One criteria used in a discussion I had (and I can't recall which of us said it first) is "MICE's strategic interests". What would that phrase mean to you; what are some strategic interests of MICE? For a bit of an absurd example for the thought experiment, imagine that someone was proposing a MICE remote switch, but we knew their goal was to attract a bunch of members and then convert that into a competing exchange. Is that something we would have to agree to simply because they met all the objective criteria? When we were new and little, MICE certainly had an interest in making every decision in a way that would maximize additional peering. However, at this point, the calculus may be (I'd argue is) different. We are moving a lot of traffic and are important to our members / in our region. We have to be careful that our decisions do not destabilize the exchange--in multiple ways: technical, financial, or political. Either way, should we expand the list of objective criteria in the policy? Some examples: * We have previously discussed dedicated vs non-dedicated switches. As time goes along, I am more convinced than ever that MICE remote switches should be required to be dedicated. Non-dedicated switches present extra complications for configuration and troubleshooting. (Jeremy has some additional insight on this that he will share.) I think we should make it a requirement that the switch be dedicated. (Perhaps the board could still grant an exception in exceptional cases.) * Should we require that a remote switch have X number of participants committed? And if so, what is X? In my view, it hardly makes sense to have a remote switch one or two participants. They could just as well backhaul to MICE directly. The criteria for allowing new remote switches vs disconnecting existing remotes need not be the same. If we set a minimum of e.g. 5 participants, we don't necessarily need to disconnect existing remotes that don't meet that. And I think the consensus is that we would not, barring them creating some significant problem. How do we feel about far-away remote switches? (This is a live issue in the context of the proposed Kansas City remote.) Some concerns: * At Wiktel, I peer with MN VoIP's far away extensions in Minneapolis. For example, I peer at SeattleIX (SIX) in Minneapolis. This has caused me some issues. For example, latency-sensitive gaming traffic was tromboning Wiktel-Minneapolis-Seattle-Chicago-Seattle-Minneapolis-Wiktel rather than Wiktel-Chicago-Wiktel. * Is it safe to have a broadcast domain that stretches across multiple states (or half a continent, in the SIX case)? * If we take this to its logical extreme... Imagine we had a MICE extension in every datacenter in the U.S. I think that is pretty obviously untenable for a bunch of reasons. Something close to that is actually within the realm of possibility, with some of these virtual extension things that people are doing. (Reid would be able to cite who.) Granted, nobody is proposing that today, but where should we draw the line? * Far-away extensions may reduce the incentive for CDNs to install locally. Some counterpoints: * Nobody is forcing networks to use the far-away remotes. * If people choose to use them, they take their routing into their own hands. They need to understand the tromboning risk and set their own routing policy. o Counter-counterpoint: Do they? Especially smaller / less experienced networks? Have we adequately warned them? o Counter-counterpoint: The existence of these far-away peers doesn't affect just them. It also affects the other networks with which they peer. Everyone on the exchange needs to be aware of the existence of far-away participants and handle their routing policy accordingly. If there are enough far-away peers, this might tip networks into an opt-in route server policy, or even to only do bilaterals. This will disadvantage small participants. * Networks can backhaul into far-away exchanges directly. o Counter-counterpoint: But a remote switch makes this cheaper / more feasible / more common, which is literally the point of creating such a remote switch. * For a local eyeball network in Des Moines, neither MICE nor Kansas City are far-away from me. Even MICE via Kansas City is not likely to be problematic. This might be the only economically feasible way they could peer with Minneapolis content. -- Richard

8 23

MICE Node for AS112
by David Farmer 05 May '22

05 May '22

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 ===============================================

2 2

Please welcome LTD Broadband. to MICE!
by Jeremy Lumby 03 May '22

03 May '22

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

1 0

IPv4 BGP session to Google down
by Frank Bulk 19 Apr '22

19 Apr '22

Our BGP session bounce several times last might between 10:00 and 10:07 pm Central, and then has been down from 10:21 am. Anyone else seeing this? I see a little drop in the graph (http://micelg.usinternet.com/cacti/graph_view.php?action=tree&tree_id=1&lea…) this morning. Frank Bulk FiberNet (AS18883) Apr 7 10:21:55 207.32.15.14 Rib: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 206.108.255.167 (AS 15169) 4/0 (Hold Timer Expired Error/Unspecified) 0 bytes Apr 7 10:21:55 207.32.15.14 Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 206.108.255.167 (AS 15169) old state Established event HoldTime new state Idle Apr 7 10:22:00 207.32.15.14 Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 206.108.255.167 (AS 15169) old state OpenConfirm event RecvKeepAlive new state Established Apr 7 10:22:30 207.32.15.14 Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 206.108.255.167 (AS 15169) old state Established event HoldTime new state Idle

5 8

Please welcome Nsight Telservices to MICE!
by Jeremy Lumby 18 Apr '22

18 Apr '22

Name: Nsight Telservices Switch: MICE Core Port: E 6/22/1 ASN: 3663 IPv4: 206.108.255.192/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:E4F::1/64 Peering Contact: network-routing(a)nsight.com 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

2 1

OT: NANOG call for presentations
by steve ulrich 05 Apr '22

05 Apr '22

folks - long time lurker here. ( as well as a couple of times meatspace meeting attendee. ) apologies in advance for the off-topic email, but i'm on the NANOG program committee and we've had folks express interest in presentations regarding regional peering exchanges as well as talks regarding independent networks that have done interesting things from an operational perspective. e.g.: managing growth, novel deployment of access technologies. etc. it struck me that the folks peering at MICE or engaged in MICE operations might have great presentation ideas/material.. the next NANOG is in june in montreal, ca. but we're always looking for presentations for future NANOGs as well. NANOG has a variety of different presentation formats and we're open to suggestions. please feel free to submit an abstract online ( https://nanog.org/program/call-presentations/) and someone from the program committee thanks! -- steve ulrich (sulrich(a)botwerks.org)

1 0

Please welcome Long Lines Broadband to MICE!
by Jeremy Lumby 04 Apr '22

04 Apr '22

Name: Long Lines Broadband Switch: MICE Main Port: E6/21/1 ASN: 32867 IPv4: This is a port upgrade, all IP info remains the same. The new connection will be 100G IPv6: Peering Contact: data(a)longlines.biz 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

1 0

ARIN NOAUTH
by Jay Hanke 04 Apr '22

04 Apr '22

ARIN NOAUTH (legacy IRR) is getting shut down today at 11 AM central time. There will likely be some filtering issues across the internet for networks that haven't updated their IRR. https://www.arin.net/blog/2022/02/16/Take-Action-Now-to-Prepare-for-the-ARI… -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

1 0

MICE RS3 deactivated
by Jay Hanke 31 Mar '22

31 Mar '22

MICE RS3 (test route server) has been powered down. Thanks! -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

1 0

Re: MICE Remote Switch Policy
by Dean Bahls 24 Mar '22

24 Mar '22

I don’t think we can create enough check boxes to protect against all combinations and permutations that nefarious folks can dream up….that’s why we have a board. I think the board is elected to make sure the exchange is being run properly….and that’s how I vote. If the board wants feedback on any of the topics below, I’m sure all of us have opinions, and that would probably provide guidance needed for the board to make an official ruling. All within the realm of reasonableness. Keep up the good work! Dean From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 3:59 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Remote Switch Policy I've had some discussions with the board as well as with Jay and Jeremy on these topics. The board consensus was to bring this (in general) to the membership for more input. As to the specifics, while I know others agree with at least parts of this, I'm only speaking for myself here. I'll let everyone articulate their own positions. (This disclaimer should not be read as me signaling the existance of disagreement either. I just don't want to put words in other people's mouths.) Our current policy on remote switches is here: https://micemn.net/technical.html#remotes It has the proposal presented to the membership for discussion, then the board makes a final decision. Is this decision ministerial or discretionary? That is, if the remote switch proposal checks all the boxes in our policy, is MICE "required" (supposed to) always grant it, or is the board supposed to apply some discretion? If the decision is ministerial, then why bother bringing this to the board (or for that matter, the members) all? Couldn't we save a bunch of time and hassle and simply have management (in some form, whether that's me, Jay, and/or Jeremy) approve it? If the decision is discretionary, are there particular criteria that the board should consider (above and beyond the listed criteria)? One criteria used in a discussion I had (and I can't recall which of us said it first) is "MICE's strategic interests". What would that phrase mean to you; what are some strategic interests of MICE? For a bit of an absurd example for the thought experiment, imagine that someone was proposing a MICE remote switch, but we knew their goal was to attract a bunch of members and then convert that into a competing exchange. Is that something we would have to agree to simply because they met all the objective criteria? When we were new and little, MICE certainly had an interest in making every decision in a way that would maximize additional peering. However, at this point, the calculus may be (I'd argue is) different. We are moving a lot of traffic and are important to our members / in our region. We have to be careful that our decisions do not destabilize the exchange--in multiple ways: technical, financial, or political. Either way, should we expand the list of objective criteria in the policy? Some examples: * We have previously discussed dedicated vs non-dedicated switches. As time goes along, I am more convinced than ever that MICE remote switches should be required to be dedicated. Non-dedicated switches present extra complications for configuration and troubleshooting. (Jeremy has some additional insight on this that he will share.) I think we should make it a requirement that the switch be dedicated. (Perhaps the board could still grant an exception in exceptional cases.) * Should we require that a remote switch have X number of participants committed? And if so, what is X? In my view, it hardly makes sense to have a remote switch one or two participants. They could just as well backhaul to MICE directly. The criteria for allowing new remote switches vs disconnecting existing remotes need not be the same. If we set a minimum of e.g. 5 participants, we don't necessarily need to disconnect existing remotes that don't meet that. And I think the consensus is that we would not, barring them creating some significant problem. How do we feel about far-away remote switches? (This is a live issue in the context of the proposed Kansas City remote.) Some concerns: * At Wiktel, I peer with MN VoIP's far away extensions in Minneapolis. For example, I peer at SeattleIX (SIX) in Minneapolis. This has caused me some issues. For example, latency-sensitive gaming traffic was tromboning Wiktel-Minneapolis-Seattle-Chicago-Seattle-Minneapolis-Wiktel rather than Wiktel-Chicago-Wiktel. * Is it safe to have a broadcast domain that stretches across multiple states (or half a continent, in the SIX case)? * If we take this to its logical extreme... Imagine we had a MICE extension in every datacenter in the U.S. I think that is pretty obviously untenable for a bunch of reasons. Something close to that is actually within the realm of possibility, with some of these virtual extension things that people are doing. (Reid would be able to cite who.) Granted, nobody is proposing that today, but where should we draw the line? * Far-away extensions may reduce the incentive for CDNs to install locally. Some counterpoints: * Nobody is forcing networks to use the far-away remotes. * If people choose to use them, they take their routing into their own hands. They need to understand the tromboning risk and set their own routing policy. * Counter-counterpoint: Do they? Especially smaller / less experienced networks? Have we adequately warned them? * Counter-counterpoint: The existence of these far-away peers doesn't affect just them. It also affects the other networks with which they peer. Everyone on the exchange needs to be aware of the existence of far-away participants and handle their routing policy accordingly. If there are enough far-away peers, this might tip networks into an opt-in route server policy, or even to only do bilaterals. This will disadvantage small participants. * Networks can backhaul into far-away exchanges directly. * Counter-counterpoint: But a remote switch makes this cheaper / more feasible / more common, which is literally the point of creating such a remote switch. * For a local eyeball network in Des Moines, neither MICE nor Kansas City are far-away from me. Even MICE via Kansas City is not likely to be problematic. This might be the only economically feasible way they could peer with Minneapolis content. -- Richard ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

2 1