- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Odd AWS transfer issue

by Ryan Malek

Downloaded nearly instantly, no problem. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan Malek - Router12 Networks LLC Internet, Phone, and Hosted Services Ph. 641.420.7180 On 9/6/2024 11:41 AM, Danny Meister wrote: > Good Afternoon, > > I've been trying to track down a strange packet loss issue when a > customer of mine is downloading files from S3 in the east region. We > peer with AWS via MICE and traffic to east routes via MICE. > > Could any of you folks peered with AWS via MICE try downloading this > file a bunch of times and reports the results? > > http://ofw-atomic-data-test-region-us-east-1.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws… > > > Basically, we see fast transfers maybe 80% of the time and then it > will be slow, like sub 1Mb slow (we can replicate the issue with iperf > to an EC2 instance also). Captures show lots of retransmits, etc > during a slow transfer. If I shut down my AWS peering the problem goes > away. I was able to test from another client of mine connected to > Arvig and I'm pretty sure I can replicate the issue from there. So, > I'm not convinced it's just me. On the other hand, if there is a > problem, I'm surprised no one else has noticed! > > Thanks! > > *Danny Meister * > > Infrastructure Engineer > > 612.466.2071 | DMeister(a)atomicdata.com > > Logo > <https://www.atomicdata.com/?utm_campaign=signature&amp;amp;utm_source=E…> > > 250 Marquette Avenue South | Minneapolis, MN | 55401 > > *atomicdata.com* > <https://www.atomicdata.com/?utm_campaign=signature&amp;utm_source=Email…>|*Services* > <https://www.atomicdata.com/services?utm_campaign=Signature&utm_source=E…>| > *Blog* > <https://www.atomicdata.com/blog?utm_campaign=Signature&utm_source=Email> > Atomic Data Welcomes Chris Heim as CEO > <https://www.atomicdata.com/atomic-data-welcomes-chris-heim-as-ceo/?utm_sour…> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > 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> >

Sept. 6, 2024

Odd AWS transfer issue

by Danny Meister

Sept. 6, 2024

New QCIX Mailing Lists

by Jay Hanke

For those that are interested, QCIX has just added mailing lists. https://qcix.mailman3.com/ -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 507-327-2398 https://southfront.io/ <https://southfront.io/path.html>

Sept. 6, 2024

Please welcome Triplebit to MICE!

by Jeremy Lumby

Name: Triplebit Switch: MICE Core - Ridgeview Ports: E 3/31/2 Strands 123-124 for a total of 1x10G ASN: 401332 IPv4: 206.108.255.233/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:6:1FB4::1 Peering Contact: peering(a)triplebit.org Route Servers: 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

Sept. 4, 2024

Internet Society IXP grant program

by Mike O'Connor

hi all, just a heads up if we're not already aware of this program. probably too late for this round (deadline: Sept 6th), but might be a good one to track in the future... https://circleid.com/posts/20240903-deadline-of-september-6-for-grant-fundi… the Internet Society might also have a list of other funders we would tap... mike O'C

Sept. 4, 2024

Fwd: [Idr] [job@fastly.com: RFC 9234 route leak prevention in the wild!]

by David Farmer

I think this is something we should add to our list Thanks ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Job Snijders <job=40fastly.com(a)dmarc.ietf.org> Date: Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 8:36 AM Subject: [Idr] [job(a)fastly.com: RFC 9234 route leak prevention in the wild!] To: <idr(a)ietf.org> Hello IDR, You might enjoy a report back from the field on route leak blocking based on RFC 9234. Please see below. Kind regards, Job ----- Forwarded message from Job Snijders <job(a)fastly.com> ----- Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 13:33:00 +0000 From: Job Snijders <job(a)fastly.com> To: nanog(a)nanog.org Subject: RFC 9234 route leak prevention in the wild! Dear all, I'd like to share an update on RFC 9234 deployment. RFC 9234 titled "BGP Open Policy" aka the "Only-To-Customer" (OTC) BGP Path Attribute is an anti-route-leak mechanism which is *NOT* based on RPKI! (yes ... routing security is more than just RPKI! :-) The basic idea of 9234 is that BGP routers (based on their role in the Gao-Rexford inter-domain routing model) attach a special BGP Path attribute, or take action based on the presence and contents of this BGP Path attribute - with the intention to constrain a route's propagation radius to just the downstream customer cone of the neighboring ASN. Most operators will intuitively understand that any route propagating through multiple IX route servers operated by different IXPs is a route leak: ``` IXP_1 IXP_2 / \ / \ / \ / \ ISP_A ISP_B ISP_C (receives) (leaker) (originates) ``` (figure 1. propagation from right to left; leak scenario) In the above example, ISP_A originates a route towards IXP_1's route servers, IXP_1 propagates the route to ISP_B (so far so good); but for one reason or another ISP_B subsequently continues propagation of the route towards IXP_2's route servers, who in turn propagate it to ISP_C. ISP_B is forwarding IP traffic between ISP_A and ISP_C for zero revenue. ISP_A and ISP_C are probably not expecting ISP_B to be in the middle. This situation can happen as a result of a misconfiguration in ISP_B's equipment, even when all participants use IRR & RPKI ROV to attempt to mitigate the worst routing incidents. What does it matter / impact ============================ Calgary-based YYCIX deployed RFC9234 support in late 2022/early 2023 using OpenBGPD; and FranceIX deployed support using BIRD in Q2 2024. Both IXPs configured their route servers to reject BGP routes that have an OTC attribute attached, and to attach an OTC attribute when propagating routes to the Route Server's peers. As it happens to be, currently (Mon Sep 2 12:26:50 UTC 2024) a small route leak is happening involving both YYCIX and FranceIX Route Servers via an ISP connected to both IXP's Route Servers; with the leak being stopped at YYCIX thanks to RFC 9234! Appendix A contains a table of leaked IPv4 routes. Let's zoom in on 1 entry: ``` $ bgpctl show rib 157.185.154.0/24 detail BGP routing table entry for 157.185.154.0/24 6939 38040 54994 Nexthop 206.126.225.20 (via 206.126.225.20) Neighbor 206.126.225.20 (216.218.252.194) Origin IGP, metric 1911, localpref 100, weight 0, ovs not-found, avs unknown, external, otc leak Last update: 11:58:08 ago Communities: 0:2906 0:16265 0:16276 0:18638 0:41690 0:48641 0:49029 Ext. Communities: ovs not-found Large Communities: 53339:11:1 53339:11:3 Aggregator: 54994 [163.171.131.254] OTC: 51706 ``` (figure 2. inspecting an leaked route using OpenBGPD's CLI) In figure 2. one can see the route is marked as 'otc leak', this was made possible because FranceIX's route server's attached the OTC attribute with the ASN value set to their Route Server's ASN (51706). ``` YYCIX FranceIX . x <adds OTC> \ . \ / \ ISP_A 6939_38040 54994 ``` (figure 3. right to left: real world example of blocked leak) In figure 3 AS 54994 originates 157.185.154.0/24 and propagates a route towards the FranceIX route servers. FranceIX accepts this route (probably because an IRR route object exists) and propagates it onward with the "Only-To-Customer" attribute set to 51706. The route is received by AS 38040, who appear to propagate the route to their upstream 6939. << An AS 38040 router is likely misconfigured! >> Then 6939 sends its customer's routes to the YYCIX route server, but the YYCIX route server recognizes that the route already passed through a 'valley' and thus considers this a leak; and blocks further propagation towards ISP_A. Impact with partial deployment ============================== RFC 9234 is an easy mechanism to configure and debug for both small & large network operators and IXP route server operators. In the above scenario YYCIX and FranceIX are likely the only 2 entities in the entire AS path which support RFC 9234; but we're already seeing leaks being blocked despite partial deployment! It's not hard to imagine that many IX-to-IX route leaks can be blocked with only the IXP operators themselves enabling RFC 9234 support. The world's most populair RS implementations (BIRD and OpenBGPD) already support RFC 9234! Tens of thousands of IX customers would enjoy the benefits of a few hundred IXPs taking action. RFC 9234 has no dependency on the RPKI, this means tha What can you do? ================ Just ask your vendors (your hardware routers and IXPs) to implement and deploy RFC 9234! :-) The more people ask, the more it'll bubble to the top of the priority list. The cost of implementing & deploying RFC 9234 is excellent bang for buck. Closing words ============= Shout out to our friends at FranceIX and MSK-IX for being amongst the first IXPs to deploy RFC 9234! Your effort helped reduce the potential impact of today's route leak! Kind regards, Job (YYCIX volunteer) Appendix A: ----------- Vantage point: YYCIX Route Server 1 (rs1.yycix.ca) Timestamp: Mon Sep 2 12:31:50 UTC 2024 Destination Prefix AS_PATH 102.164.129.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 102.164.139.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 37649 37649 37649 37649 i 102.164.140.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 102.164.141.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 102.164.182.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 154.65.33.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 154.65.34.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 154.65.35.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 154.65.36.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 154.65.37.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 154.65.38.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 154.65.39.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 154.72.35.0/24 6939 37613 37100 37027 37063 327721 i 157.185.151.0/24 6939 38040 54994 i 157.185.154.0/24 6939 38040 54994 i 163.171.164.0/24 6939 38040 54994 i 192.150.250.0/23 6939 4651 4618 4618 63529 4621 3836 i 196.50.8.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 196.50.9.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 196.50.11.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 37649 37649 37649 37649 i 196.50.13.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 37649 37649 37649 37649 i 196.50.14.0/24 6939 37613 6758 37649 i 2001:67c:15f4::/48 6939 41103 i 2401:c500:fd08::/48 6939 4637 38040 54994 i 2a01:53c0:ff03::/48 6939 4637 38040 54994 i 2a01:53c0:ff0f::/48 6939 4637 38040 54994 i 2a01:58c0::/32 6939 16347 42487 i 2a03:8920::/32 6939 41103 i 2a03:d602::/31 6939 16347 42487 i 2a03:d606::/31 6939 16347 42487 i 2a0d:ee00::/32 6939 16347 42487 i 2a0e:5b80::/29 6939 16347 42487 i 2a0e:e080::/32 6939 16347 42487 i 2a0f:c540::/29 6939 16347 42487 i ----- End forwarded message ----- _______________________________________________ Idr mailing list -- idr(a)ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to idr-leave(a)ietf.org -- =============================================== 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 ===============================================

Sept. 2, 2024

Re: [EXTERNAL] - Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX

by Jeremy Lumby

You can view the ports on the weathermap. The short version is that they have been using BGP to redirect traffic away from MICE for years. Each of the 100G ports ramps up to 90G sits there for about 18 hours, and then drops to reasonable levels for the late night/early morning hours. Repeat every day since shortly after their last upgrade several years ago. By my estimation they need 600G to MICE just to not saturate/not need to redirect traffic away from MICE. While I am not on the board, at those traffic levels Google can justify doing something on their own, and not need to look for handouts to get to MICE. Google has received a lot of free assistance in connecting to MICE in the past. Now they are unwilling to even have an open conversation about anything that would assist keeping them DIRECTLY on MICE as opposed to some sort of workaround where they are not taking on ANY of the recurring costs. Jeremy From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Miles McCredie Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 9:00 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] - Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX Interesting. I’d be interested in any/all of average/P95/P99/Peak traffic over the last month on the Google ports but understand it’s not really any of my business. Is there a trend line over the last quarter or two? I have heard second hand that MICE ran into some unpleasantness around cache back in the day but I, for one, think that it would be worthwhile exploring the option of hosting caches again. (Would be even better for Google to build in to Minneapolis so that we can all turn up more local PNIs but they haven’t been interested in my views on this. 😊) As someone pointed out up thread, there are a handful of issues to sort out in this area. <http://images.midcocomm.com/ES_MidcoLogo.png> Miles McCredie Principal Network Engineer II-Core IP Office: 6052755192 Miles.McCredie(a)midco.com <mailto:Miles.McCredie@midco.com> Midco.com Let's go beyond. From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Friday, August 23, 2024 8:40 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] - Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX I would be willing to bet if you looked just at the eyeball networks on MICE, 90% are getting the majority of their Google traffic across MICE, even if they have caches they are getting the fill across MICE in addition to the non cacheable traffic. Google's caches are not nearly as efficient as many of their competitors. I can confirm with over 10 years of experience dealing with Google that they are almost always very slow to upgrade. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington MN 55425 Main 612-355-7740 Direct 612-392-6814 EFax 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com <mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com> -------- Original message -------- From: Miles McCredie <Miles.McCredie(a)MIDCO.COM <mailto:Miles.McCredie@MIDCO.COM> > Date: 8/23/24 6:34 AM (GMT-06:00) To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] [EXTERNAL] - Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX Curious how many MICE members are in each of the following buckets. 1. Receive limited portion of Google traffic via MICE Midco and, I assume, US Internet are in this bucket 2. Receive a significant portion of Google traffic via MICE today I’ve only got a couple years of experience with Google for Midco but my experience has been that Google will not always provide the cache capacity that I think is appropriate. The last two augments were triggered 9-12 months later than I would have liked. Could be my fault for creating new GNLs but… <http://images.midcocomm.com/ES_MidcoLogo.png> Miles McCredie Principal Network Engineer II-Core IP Office: 6052755192 Miles.McCredie(a)midco.com Midco.com Let's go beyond. From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > On Behalf Of Justin Krejci Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 5:25 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX CAUTION: This email originated from outside of MIDCO. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am not sure what Google's stance is on deploying cache servers at an IX vs remote connection like the ones pending disconnection. If they were to deploy caching nodes at an IX, I assume they would still have a cache-fill requirement in terms of connectivity that has to come from somewhere... of which they appear to be disinterested in maintaining long distance connections going forward. So perhaps this is a donation opportunity for some to entice Google to deploy caching nodes at MICE? Donate local colo and transit bandwidth along with local MICE connectivity? We have numerous Google caching nodes in our network as well as multiple PNIs to Google, so their pending disconnect from MICE will likely have minimal direct impact on our eyeballs. -----Original Message----- From: Aaron Wendel <aaron(a)WHOLESALEINTERNET.NET <mailto:Aaron%20Wendel%20%3caaron@WHOLESALEINTERNET.NET%3e> > Reply-To: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE%20Discuss%20%3cMICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET%3e> > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2024 22:03:01 +0000 Has MICE requested a cache box from Google? ------ Original Message ------ >From "Anthony Anderberg" <AnthonyAnderberg(a)NUVERA.NET <mailto:AnthonyAnderberg@NUVERA.NET> > To MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET <mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Date 8/22/2024 4:28:18 PM Subject Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX I've been surprised that folks haven't been talking about this more and am curious about everyone's thoughts - as MICE user-members but also in terms of MICE leadership and direction. As a user-member I feel somewhat conflicted: on one hand in an effort to maximize performance I could obtain transport to Chicago and connect to Google there, but I feel like doing so is making Google's problem into my problem and that doing so undercuts the goals of MICE. We've seen content providers move MICE's larger members toward local direct private peering, and I can understand rational behind that even if it shifts traffic away from MICE - but Google is proposing remote direct peering at member's cost which feels different. Of course nobody expects Google to subsidize our corner of the world, I am just curious if there are other aspects we should be thinking about. Thanks in advance, Anthony On 8/22/24, 7:24 AM, "Google Peering Operations No-reply" <peering-ops-noreply(a)google.com <mailto:peering-ops-noreply@google.com> <mailto:peering-ops-noreply@google.com <mailto:peering-ops-noreply@google.com> >> wrote: Dear Peer, This is a reminder that peering with Google will no longer be available at MICE Internet Exchange from 16th of September. As a result of unsustainable overheads associated with connecting to an IX using remote waves, we have made a decision to stop connecting to IXs that way. MICE IX falls under the category of IXs we remotely connect to. We will withdraw prefixes on 16th of September, and disconnect from the IX on 24th of September. We realize this may cause inconvenience for some peers. If there is another mutually present IX that we can peer in, we will be happy to help set up a bilateral session there - no multilaterals. If there is no mutual IX, traffic may have to be exchanged via indirect paths (transit links). We are not looking to connect to any additional IXs to replace the IX that we are leaving, but if you are considering connecting to another IX and not sure if Google will also be leaving that IX because of this measure, please reach out to us and we can share more. Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely, Google Network Operations _____ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1> &A=1 _____ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1> &A=1 _____ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1> &A=1 _____ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1> &A=1

Aug. 23, 2024

Re: [EXTERNAL] - Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX

by David Farmer

There will be more to come for Google in Minneapolis. They pulled the plug on their Becker DC during COVID; that was a significant setback for us. But it is inconceivable that they won't do something; it just takes time. On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 9:29 AM Aaron Wendel <aaron(a)wholesaleinternet.net> wrote: > They were and then they pulled out. > > Google's peering philosophy seems to change about every 3-5 years so it > wouldn't surprise me at all if they build out to the midwest (outside of > Chicago) again. > > As someone who is in the IX, Datacenter and Access businesses I can tell > you that I've seen a major migration of content networks into tier 2/3 > markets, especially in the Midwest/Great Plains areas over the last year or > two. Google will come back eventually. > > Aaron > > > > ------ Original Message ------ > > (Would be even better for Google to build in to Minneapolis so that we > can all turn up more local PNIs but they haven’t been interested in my > views on this. 😊) > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 ===============================================

Aug. 23, 2024

Re: [EXTERNAL] - Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX

by Aaron Wendel

They were and then they pulled out. Google's peering philosophy seems to change about every 3-5 years so it wouldn't surprise me at all if they build out to the midwest (outside of Chicago) again. As someone who is in the IX, Datacenter and Access businesses I can tell you that I've seen a major migration of content networks into tier 2/3 markets, especially in the Midwest/Great Plains areas over the last year or two. Google will come back eventually. Aaron ------ Original Message ------ > (Would be even better for Google to build in to Minneapolis so that we >can all turn up more local PNIs but they haven’t been interested in my >views on this. 😊) >

Aug. 23, 2024

Re: Peering with Google no longer available at MICE IX

by David Farmer

I have a tentative agreement for the University to host a Google Cache and provide the cache fill for MICE. The plan would be to host it on campus, initially in our Telecom Building, and move it to the new data center being constructed on campus, probably later in 2026. We would provide space, power, cache fill, and fiber back to 511, and we would expect MICE to pay for cross-connects and to provide the needed ports. We might need MICE to sign the contract with Google. The last time we talked with Google, they wanted the NDA to cover the contract itself, but as a government agency, we don't usually do that. I am reaching out to some Google contacts to see if Google has any new flexibility on that issue. Thanks On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 4:28 PM Anthony Anderberg < AnthonyAnderberg(a)nuvera.net> wrote: > I've been surprised that folks haven't been talking about this more and am > curious about everyone's thoughts - as MICE user-members but also in terms > of MICE leadership and direction. > > As a user-member I feel somewhat conflicted: on one hand in an effort to > maximize performance I could obtain transport to Chicago and connect to > Google there, but I feel like doing so is making Google's problem into my > problem and that doing so undercuts the goals of MICE. We've seen content > providers move MICE's larger members toward local direct private peering, > and I can understand rational behind that even if it shifts traffic away > from MICE - but Google is proposing remote direct peering at member's cost > which feels different. > > Of course nobody expects Google to subsidize our corner of the world, I am > just curious if there are other aspects we should be thinking about. > > Thanks in advance, > Anthony > > > > On 8/22/24, 7:24 AM, "Google Peering Operations No-reply" < > peering-ops-noreply(a)google.com <mailto:peering-ops-noreply@google.com>> > wrote: > > Dear Peer, > > This is a reminder that peering with Google will no longer be available at > MICE Internet Exchange from 16th of September. > > As a result of unsustainable overheads associated with connecting to an IX > using remote waves, we have made a decision to stop connecting to IXs that > way. MICE IX falls under the category of IXs we remotely connect to. > > We will withdraw prefixes on 16th of September, and disconnect from the IX > on 24th of September. > > We realize this may cause inconvenience for some peers. If there is > another > mutually present IX that we can peer in, we will be happy to help set up a > bilateral session there - no multilaterals. If there is no mutual IX, > traffic may have to be exchanged via indirect paths (transit links). > > We are not looking to connect to any additional IXs to replace the IX that > we are leaving, but if you are considering connecting to another IX and > not > sure if Google will also be leaving that IX because of this measure, > please > reach out to us and we can share more. > > Thank you for your understanding. > > > Sincerely, > Google Network Operations > > > -- =============================================== 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 ===============================================

Aug. 23, 2024