- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Multi-IX Traffic Management?

by Jason Hanke

As a transport seller, We're seeing most networks most commonly buy linear paths to two or more IXes. Typically going opposite directions from their home base. We're also starting to see smaller operators exclusively doing remote peering. A typical set up is buying identical transport to the 2 adjacent IX buildings. On wavelengths, the link failure can be passed back to from end to end. Granted, a long-haul wavelength isn't as stable as a cross connect. If a network doesn't have any remote gear the convergence is governed by EBGP vs IBGP/IGP if there is an additional router. For remote setups, in particular with Ethernet transport we're seeing more and more BFD on the sessions. Jay On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 8:27 AM, Michael Hare <michael.hare(a)wisc.edu> wrote: > For those buying wavelengths (compared to an mpls circuit), are you buying diverse transport? If not, how are you dealing with convergence stability? > > -Michael > >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf >>>Of Colin Baker >>>Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:29 PM >>>To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>>Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Multi-IX Traffic Management? >>> >>>On 27.10.2017 15:01, Matthew Beckwell wrote: >>>> For my own curiosity: >>>> >>>> I've seen quite a few networks in the last year or so connecting >>>> themselves to other out-of-market IX's (I presume getting some cheap >>>> wavelengths and bringing it back to Minnesota). >>>> >>>> A couple of questions for those of you that are doing this: >>>> >>>> 1. I'm assuming this is enabling you to accommodate requirements from >>>> other networks that require peering at multiple locations, even though >>>> technically your network doesn't really extend that far (or maybe it's >>>> something else?). >>> >>>For us, the goal is to reach networks which are not on exchanges which >>>we're already connected. The big ones are at MICE, but there are other >>>exchanges we can get to reasonably inexpensively that have such a large >>>number of networks connected that it makes sense financially (compared >>>to buying more transit). Traffic from a huge number of ASNs, >>>particularly if most are on a route server, can really add up. >>> >>>Peering in multiple locations is a nice benefit to this, but usually not >>>a primary goal for us. >>> >>>> 2. How are folks monitoring, managing, or manipulating this >>>> out-of-market traffic? (Using BGP MED, Prepending, Localpref, or some >>>> other mechanism to "prefer" your traffic enter and exit closer to >>>> where you really are?) >>> >>>If you haven't already, install as-stats >>>(https://github.com/manuelkasper/AS-Stats) to monitor things, which will >>>make it clear if something is out of whack. In most cases, our IGP >>>handles outbound traffic in a way the makes sense. Inbound traffic can >>>be trickier - a few networks will publish action communities or accept >>>MEDs, and we utilize those tools when available. Prepending is >>>occasionally useful. Announcing more specifics in certain spots always >>>felt like a jerk move so I tend to avoid that, but that's a thing I >>>suppose. >>> >>>-- >>>Colin Baker >>>SupraNet Communications, Inc. >>>(608) 572-7634 >>>colinb(a)supranet.net >>> >>>This message is subject to the SupraNet Email Confidentiality Policy >>>which is located at http://supranet.net/confidentiality -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Oct. 30, 2017

Re: Multi-IX Traffic Management?

by Jeremy Lumby

-----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Michael Hare Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 8:27 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Multi-IX Traffic Management? For those buying wavelengths (compared to an mpls circuit), are you buying diverse transport? If not, how are you dealing with convergence stability? -Michael >>-----Original Message----- >>From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf >>Of Colin Baker >>Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:29 PM >>To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Multi-IX Traffic Management? >> >>On 27.10.2017 15:01, Matthew Beckwell wrote: >>> For my own curiosity: >>> >>> I've seen quite a few networks in the last year or so connecting >>> themselves to other out-of-market IX's (I presume getting some cheap >>> wavelengths and bringing it back to Minnesota). >>> >>> A couple of questions for those of you that are doing this: >>> >>> 1. I'm assuming this is enabling you to accommodate requirements from >>> other networks that require peering at multiple locations, even though >>> technically your network doesn't really extend that far (or maybe it's >>> something else?). >> >>For us, the goal is to reach networks which are not on exchanges which >>we're already connected. The big ones are at MICE, but there are other >>exchanges we can get to reasonably inexpensively that have such a large >>number of networks connected that it makes sense financially (compared >>to buying more transit). Traffic from a huge number of ASNs, >>particularly if most are on a route server, can really add up. >> >>Peering in multiple locations is a nice benefit to this, but usually not >>a primary goal for us. >> >>> 2. How are folks monitoring, managing, or manipulating this >>> out-of-market traffic? (Using BGP MED, Prepending, Localpref, or some >>> other mechanism to "prefer" your traffic enter and exit closer to >>> where you really are?) >> >>If you haven't already, install as-stats >>(https://github.com/manuelkasper/AS-Stats) to monitor things, which will >>make it clear if something is out of whack. In most cases, our IGP >>handles outbound traffic in a way the makes sense. Inbound traffic can >>be trickier - a few networks will publish action communities or accept >>MEDs, and we utilize those tools when available. Prepending is >>occasionally useful. Announcing more specifics in certain spots always >>felt like a jerk move so I tend to avoid that, but that's a thing I >>suppose. >> >>-- >>Colin Baker >>SupraNet Communications, Inc. >>(608) 572-7634 >>colinb(a)supranet.net >> >>This message is subject to the SupraNet Email Confidentiality Policy >>which is located at http://supranet.net/confidentiality

Oct. 30, 2017

Re: Multi-IX Traffic Management?

by Michael Hare

For those buying wavelengths (compared to an mpls circuit), are you buying diverse transport? If not, how are you dealing with convergence stability? -Michael >>-----Original Message----- >>From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf >>Of Colin Baker >>Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:29 PM >>To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Multi-IX Traffic Management? >> >>On 27.10.2017 15:01, Matthew Beckwell wrote: >>> For my own curiosity: >>> >>> I've seen quite a few networks in the last year or so connecting >>> themselves to other out-of-market IX's (I presume getting some cheap >>> wavelengths and bringing it back to Minnesota). >>> >>> A couple of questions for those of you that are doing this: >>> >>> 1. I'm assuming this is enabling you to accommodate requirements from >>> other networks that require peering at multiple locations, even though >>> technically your network doesn't really extend that far (or maybe it's >>> something else?). >> >>For us, the goal is to reach networks which are not on exchanges which >>we're already connected. The big ones are at MICE, but there are other >>exchanges we can get to reasonably inexpensively that have such a large >>number of networks connected that it makes sense financially (compared >>to buying more transit). Traffic from a huge number of ASNs, >>particularly if most are on a route server, can really add up. >> >>Peering in multiple locations is a nice benefit to this, but usually not >>a primary goal for us. >> >>> 2. How are folks monitoring, managing, or manipulating this >>> out-of-market traffic? (Using BGP MED, Prepending, Localpref, or some >>> other mechanism to "prefer" your traffic enter and exit closer to >>> where you really are?) >> >>If you haven't already, install as-stats >>(https://github.com/manuelkasper/AS-Stats) to monitor things, which will >>make it clear if something is out of whack. In most cases, our IGP >>handles outbound traffic in a way the makes sense. Inbound traffic can >>be trickier - a few networks will publish action communities or accept >>MEDs, and we utilize those tools when available. Prepending is >>occasionally useful. Announcing more specifics in certain spots always >>felt like a jerk move so I tend to avoid that, but that's a thing I >>suppose. >> >>-- >>Colin Baker >>SupraNet Communications, Inc. >>(608) 572-7634 >>colinb(a)supranet.net >> >>This message is subject to the SupraNet Email Confidentiality Policy >>which is located at http://supranet.net/confidentiality

Oct. 30, 2017

Re: Multi-IX Traffic Management?

by Richard Laager

I peer at SIX only with networks that I can't peer with at MICE. If a network is at both, I filter out their routes from SIX's route server and I ask the SIX route server to not propagate my routes to them (using the relevant communities). -- Richard

Oct. 27, 2017

Re: Multi-IX Traffic Management?

by Jeremy Lumby

Matthew, My few cents on your questions: Since there are extension switches for some of these other IXes in Minneapolis, often times the cost is far less than the wavelength, a term contract is not even needed, and by having multiple people sharing the cost of an extension, sometimes it can cover the cost of diverse waves (I have been surprised at how often a wave will go down, when you have thousands of miles of fiber, a lot can go wrong) I personally use prepends, and MEDs to manipulate traffic paths. Many of the CDNs have complicated algorithms that go far beyond BGP, and factor in things like load on the cache, geo-location of the IP, and latency. As for the Chicago problem, I still see my upstreams all trying to take me there. This gives me an option to go the other direction. After the diverse content, the second reason I peer at other exchanges is I have a direct relationship with the peer, so I cutout the delays/red tape of working with an upstream to resolve the issue. Not to mention I can avoid if the upstream gets into a pissing match about who they will/won't peer with, and it causes their links to saturate. Jeremy From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Matthew Beckwell Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 3:02 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Multi-IX Traffic Management? For my own curiosity: I've seen quite a few networks in the last year or so connecting themselves to other out-of-market IX's (I presume getting some cheap wavelengths and bringing it back to Minnesota). A couple of questions for those of you that are doing this: 1. I'm assuming this is enabling you to accommodate requirements from other networks that require peering at multiple locations, even though technically your network doesn't really extend that far (or maybe it's something else?). 2. How are folks monitoring, managing, or manipulating this out-of-market traffic? (Using BGP MED, Prepending, Localpref, or some other mechanism to "prefer" your traffic enter and exit closer to where you really are?) I've seen some funny business with these kinds of network arrangements. Google DNS responses coming from SIX......CloudFlare cache response coming from Omaha IX. It seems like it's "the Chicago problem" (that MICE was founded to avoid) all over again-- except this time around we're doing it with private links all over the country instead of public transit? Just curious what people have found to be best practices with this type of arrangement. ~Matthew To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 27, 2017

Re: Multi-IX Traffic Management?

by Colin Baker

On 27.10.2017 15:01, Matthew Beckwell wrote: > For my own curiosity: > > I've seen quite a few networks in the last year or so connecting > themselves to other out-of-market IX's (I presume getting some cheap > wavelengths and bringing it back to Minnesota). > > A couple of questions for those of you that are doing this: > > 1. I'm assuming this is enabling you to accommodate requirements from > other networks that require peering at multiple locations, even though > technically your network doesn't really extend that far (or maybe it's > something else?). For us, the goal is to reach networks which are not on exchanges which we're already connected. The big ones are at MICE, but there are other exchanges we can get to reasonably inexpensively that have such a large number of networks connected that it makes sense financially (compared to buying more transit). Traffic from a huge number of ASNs, particularly if most are on a route server, can really add up. Peering in multiple locations is a nice benefit to this, but usually not a primary goal for us. > 2. How are folks monitoring, managing, or manipulating this > out-of-market traffic? (Using BGP MED, Prepending, Localpref, or some > other mechanism to "prefer" your traffic enter and exit closer to > where you really are?) If you haven't already, install as-stats (https://github.com/manuelkasper/AS-Stats) to monitor things, which will make it clear if something is out of whack. In most cases, our IGP handles outbound traffic in a way the makes sense. Inbound traffic can be trickier - a few networks will publish action communities or accept MEDs, and we utilize those tools when available. Prepending is occasionally useful. Announcing more specifics in certain spots always felt like a jerk move so I tend to avoid that, but that's a thing I suppose. -- Colin Baker SupraNet Communications, Inc. (608) 572-7634 colinb(a)supranet.net This message is subject to the SupraNet Email Confidentiality Policy which is located at http://supranet.net/confidentiality

Oct. 27, 2017

Re: Please Welcome Omni-Tech to MICE!

by Doug McIntyre

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 02:40:19PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: >Company Name : Omni-Tech Inc. >ASN: 54821 >IPv4: 206.108.255.90/24 >IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:d625::1/64 >Port: Neutral Path Remote port ge-0/0/11 >BFD Support: NO >Route Servers: YES >Peering Contact email: peering(a)omni-tech.net > All set on the route servers for Omni-Tech, Welcome! -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 27, 2017

Multi-IX Traffic Management?

by Matthew Beckwell

For my own curiosity: I've seen quite a few networks in the last year or so connecting themselves to other out-of-market IX's (I presume getting some cheap wavelengths and bringing it back to Minnesota). A couple of questions for those of you that are doing this: 1. I'm assuming this is enabling you to accommodate requirements from other networks that require peering at multiple locations, even though technically your network doesn't really extend that far (or maybe it's something else?). 2. How are folks monitoring, managing, or manipulating this out-of-market traffic? (Using BGP MED, Prepending, Localpref, or some other mechanism to "prefer" your traffic enter and exit closer to where you really are?) I've seen some funny business with these kinds of network arrangements. Google DNS responses coming from SIX......CloudFlare cache response coming from Omaha IX. It seems like it's "the Chicago problem" (that MICE was founded to avoid) all over again-- except this time around we're doing it with private links all over the country instead of public transit? Just curious what people have found to be best practices with this type of arrangement. ~Matthew

Oct. 27, 2017

Please Welcome Omni-Tech to MICE!

by Jason Hanke

Company Name : Omni-Tech Inc. ASN: 54821 IPv4: 206.108.255.90/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:d625::1/64 Port: Neutral Path Remote port ge-0/0/11 BFD Support: NO Route Servers: YES Peering Contact email: peering(a)omni-tech.net Welcome Aboard! -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Oct. 27, 2017

Re: 2018 Fees Update?

by Richard Laager

On 10/25/2017 01:35 PM, Jason Hanke wrote: > Has the board decided on 2018 fees? We seem to all be in agreement to leave the port fees at the same levels as 2017. -- Richard

Oct. 26, 2017

Re: Please Welcome MN Wifi to MICE!

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 02:24:23PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: >Company Name: Minnesota WiFi >ASN: 393455 >IPv4: 206.108.255.89/24 >IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:6:00ef::1/64 >Peering Contact email: darin.steffl(a)mnwifi.com >Billing Email Address: darin.steffl(a)mnwifi.com >Billing Postal Address: PO Box 81, Kasson, MN 55944 >BFD Support (y/N) do you support BFD on your sessions? NO >Route Server Support (Y/n) do you want to use the MICE route servers? YES Okay, the route servers are all set and ready to go for them. Welcome! -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 25, 2017

Please Welcome MN Wifi to MICE!

by Jason Hanke

Company Name: Minnesota WiFi ASN: 393455 IPv4: 206.108.255.89/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:6:00ef::1/64 Peering Contact email: darin.steffl(a)mnwifi.com Billing Email Address: darin.steffl(a)mnwifi.com Billing Postal Address: PO Box 81, Kasson, MN 55944 BFD Support (y/N) do you support BFD on your sessions? NO Route Server Support (Y/n) do you want to use the MICE route servers? YES Connecting via MN VoIP Remote Switch. Please update your PeeringDB connection as soon as your port is ready. Welcome Aboard! -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Oct. 25, 2017

2018 Fees Update?

by Jason Hanke

Has the board decided on 2018 fees? -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Oct. 25, 2017

MICE Pull up Display

by Jason Hanke

Does anyone know where the MICE pull up display is? -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Oct. 16, 2017

Re: Please Welcome Country Wireless to MICE

by Doug McIntyre

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 11:17:17AM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: >Company Name: Country Wireless >ASN: 16616 >IPv4: 206.108.255.88/24 <http://206.108.255.28/24> >IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:1f9f::1/64 >Route Server Connection (yes/no): yes >BFD Support (yes/no): No >Peering Contact Email address: support(a)countrywireless.com >Remote port assignment number: Main Switch Ethernet 5/16 After a little delay, this is all set in the route servers. Welcome! -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 11, 2017

Re: Border To Border Blandin Conference Oct. 25 - 26

by Mike O'Connor

i don't know if it was me that you heard it from, but i think the Blanden rural internet conference is a GREAT venue to put in a plug for MICE. > On Oct 5, 2017, at 9:49 PM, Michael Hemphill <mikeh(a)COLOCONNECT.NET> wrote: > > Hi all, > Following up on our conversation at the last MICE UG meeting. > We discussed various ways of promoting MICE and someone, I apologize I don’t recall who, suggested that we work with the Blandin Foundation. > I see that there are MICE member companies speaking. > https://muninetworks.org/content/border-border-blandin-conference-oct-25-26 <https://muninetworks.org/content/border-border-blandin-conference-oct-25-26> > > Will there be an opportunity to put in a good world for MICE & tout the growth & the big name members that are connected? > Thanks all, just thinking. > Mike > > Mike Hemphill > ColoConnect > 612-812-5242 > mikeh(a)ColoConnect.net <mailto:mikeh@ColoConnect.net> > http://www.coloconnect.net/ <http://www.coloconnect.net/> > > > 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> WI:(715) 598-4284 MN:(651) 647-6109 Toll Free:(800) 896-0907 Fax:(866)-280-2356

Oct. 6, 2017

Border To Border Blandin Conference Oct. 25 - 26

by Michael Hemphill

Hi all, Following up on our conversation at the last MICE UG meeting. We discussed various ways of promoting MICE and someone, I apologize I don't recall who, suggested that we work with the Blandin Foundation. I see that there are MICE member companies speaking. https://muninetworks.org/content/border-border-blandin-conference-oct-25-26 Will there be an opportunity to put in a good world for MICE & tout the growth & the big name members that are connected? Thanks all, just thinking. Mike Mike Hemphill ColoConnect 612-812-5242 mikeh(a)ColoConnect.net<mailto:mikeh@ColoConnect.net> http://www.coloconnect.net/

Oct. 6, 2017

Please Welcome Country Wireless to MICE

by Jason Hanke

Company Name: Country Wireless ASN: 16616 IPv4: 206.108.255.88/24 <http://206.108.255.28/24> IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:1f9f::1/64 Route Server Connection (yes/no): yes BFD Support (yes/no): No Peering Contact Email address: support(a)countrywireless.com Remote port assignment number: Main Switch Ethernet 5/16 Welcome Aboard! -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Oct. 5, 2017

Re: Introvex Suspension

by Dean Bahls

I commend the MICE powers when you make these decisions. I'm sure you struggle with keeping MICE neutral, but in this case, I don't want their traffic. Thank you, Dean -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 1:00 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Introvex Suspension We are disabling Introvex's MICE port. They are a pending member at MICE. Introvex's direct prefixes [1] are listed in the SpamHaus DROP list [2]. We have also received a report that they are announcing address space without permission. [1] https://bgp.he.net/AS135886#_prefixes [2] https://www.spamhaus.org/drop/drop.txt -- Richard

Oct. 2, 2017

Introvex Suspension

by Richard Laager

We are disabling Introvex's MICE port. They are a pending member at MICE. Introvex's direct prefixes [1] are listed in the SpamHaus DROP list [2]. We have also received a report that they are announcing address space without permission. [1] https://bgp.he.net/AS135886#_prefixes [2] https://www.spamhaus.org/drop/drop.txt -- Richard

Oct. 2, 2017

New Akamai Peak Traffic Record

by David Farmer

60 Tbps, WOW! New Akamai Peak Traffic Record Demonstrates Increasing Importance Of Live Online Events *Akamai set a new record on Tuesday, September 12th, 2017, for the peak level of traffic delivered on its network.* *Cambridge, MA | September 15, 2017* Akamai Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: AKAM), the world’s largest and most trusted cloud delivery platform, announced today that it set a new record on Tuesday, September 12th, 2017, for the peak level of traffic delivered on its network. At more than 60 Tbps, the number eclipsed the previous record of 47 Tbps set on August 29th, 2017. The new peak was driven by several major events taking place concurrently on top of the normal day-to-day traffic that Akamai delivers. https://www.akamai.com/uk/en/about/news/press/2017-press/new-akamai-peak-tr… -- =============================================== 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. 27, 2017

MICE UG 25 Meeting

by Richard Laager

The MICE UG 25 meeting will be held tomorrow September 27, 3:00 pm, at the 511 Building Cafeteria, 11th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN. The agenda and UG 24 minutes are attached. I have attached the Articles of Incorporation amendment that we discussed a bit last time. It will be up to the membership whether we vote on this at this meeting, or next time. I believe the remote conferencing will be the same as before: 952-562-5400 passcode MICE (6423). -- Richard

Sept. 26, 2017

Re: UG Board Election/Proxy

by Jason Hanke

Remote voting for the MICE board election is now open. To vote remotely via email: -email peering(a)micemn.net with your ASN and your choice of one of the following: a) Anthony Anderberg b) Owen DeLong To vote via Proxy: -email peering(a)micemn.net with your ASN and your designated proxy -The designated proxy will be given the chip for your ASN To vote in person: -Attend meeting -Cast vote Thanks! On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> wrote: > We currently have two candidates to replace the open seat on the board. > > Anthony Anderberg, NU Tel > Owen DeLong, Akamai > > I will close the nomination period tomorrow (9/24/2017). > > We are using the Marble/Pokerchip Voting Method again for this meeting. > > If you are unable to attend the meeting in person, you can email your vote > to peering(a)micemn.net. Please include your ASN in the email along with > name of the person you are voting. > > Thanks! > > -- > Jay Hanke > CTO > Neutral Path Communications > 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 > Mankato, MN 56001 > (507) 327-2398 mobile > jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net > www.neutralpath.net > -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Sept. 26, 2017

Re: UG Board Election/Proxy

by John McLaughlin

Hi MICE Members: The Arista Team would like to invite all MICE members to join us for food and beverages at Maxwell’s Pub from 4:30pm - 6:30pm directly following the MICE meeting this Wednesday. Maxwell’s Pub 1201 South Washington Ave Minneapolis, MN 55415 (612) 354-7085 Thanks and hope to see you there! -JMc > On Sep 23, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> wrote: > > We currently have two candidates to replace the open seat on the board. > > Anthony Anderberg, NU Tel > Owen DeLong, Akamai > > I will close the nomination period tomorrow (9/24/2017). > > We are using the Marble/Pokerchip Voting Method again for this meeting. > > If you are unable to attend the meeting in person, you can email your vote to peering(a)micemn.net <mailto:peering@micemn.net>. Please include your ASN in the email along with name of the person you are voting. > > Thanks! > > -- > Jay Hanke > CTO > Neutral Path Communications > 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 > Mankato, MN 56001 > (507) 327-2398 mobile > jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net <mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net> > www.neutralpath.net <http://www.neutralpath.net/> > 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> John McLaughlin 612-816-9024 Major Accounts Manager jmclaughlin(a)arista.com

Sept. 25, 2017

UG Board Election/Proxy

by Jason Hanke

We currently have two candidates to replace the open seat on the board. Anthony Anderberg, NU Tel Owen DeLong, Akamai I will close the nomination period tomorrow (9/24/2017). We are using the Marble/Pokerchip Voting Method again for this meeting. If you are unable to attend the meeting in person, you can email your vote to peering(a)micemn.net. Please include your ASN in the email along with name of the person you are voting. Thanks! -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Sept. 23, 2017