- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Andrew Hoyos

On Dec 1, 2016, at 9:39 AM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: > > USI has arranged for Arista Networks to donate a 7504 switch with > 32x100G and 96x10G ports with one year of support. In year 2, MICE > would be responsible for the ongoing support costs about 14k per year. > There would be one additional slot for future growth. That’s awesome, thanks USI and Arista! Seems like a no brainer to proceed with that option. > Here's what I'd propose: > 1G ports= Free (Only 1 port per member, NO LAG allowed) > Initial 10G port= $250 Annual > Each additional 10G port $1000 Annual per port (up to 8 member LAG allowed) > 100G port $3000 Annual per port If we’re going the annual route - any reason/logic behind why the 20g -> 80g range seems to carry a disproportionate amount of the fee load? Why shouldn’t all 10g ports just be $250/yr? With this layout, I fear that the “Big Guys” will think you’re dumping the fee load (and downstream equipment cost) onto them by forcing 100g ports at that cost for n x 10g. Seems like being agnostic on a port level (no matter how many you have) would be a better move. For comparison on a IX that charges yearly and is non-profit like MICE, NWAX might be a good example, which is charging: 1gbps Port 1st port FREE - additional, $295/month 10gbps Port $295/month 100gbps Port $1995/month + $6000 NRC I’d also disagree with not allowing multiple 1g ports for customers into a LAG. For small bootstrapped companies, that 1g -> 10g jump can be expensive, and 2xGigE LAG doesn’t seem like a problem in the case where they are hitting that 60-70% on a GigE. Given the Arista architecture and depth of buffers there, I wouldn’t see any technical issue leaving the EX4550 hanging off the 7504, just for 1g customers, if you’re worried about burning “expensive” ports. Food for thought, YMMV, etc. -andrew -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Jeremy Lumby

I think this is a great fee proposal, and special thanks to USI, and Arista -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 9:40 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment All- Our main switch is nearing the end of its lifespan and the available port count is dwindling. At the current rate of burn we will be out of ports in early-2017. USI has arranged for Arista Networks to donate a 7504 switch with 32x100G and 96x10G ports with one year of support. In year 2, MICE would be responsible for the ongoing support costs about 14k per year. There would be one additional slot for future growth. I would like to make a formal request for comment and add the following item to the UG agenda. Here's what I'd propose: 1G ports= Free (Only 1 port per member, NO LAG allowed) Initial 10G port= $250 Annual Each additional 10G port $1000 Annual per port (up to 8 member LAG allowed) 100G port $3000 Annual per port Remote switch operators pay the fee for their main switch ports. Remote switch participants do not pay a main switch port fee. No grandfathering, all types of networks are treated the same. We will not disconnect for non-payment until port run out and contention occurs. A policy will need to be developed. New ports billed at time of allocation. Each carrier provides their own optic. Arista has agreed to remove the vendor lockout for optics. This will yield about $37k of annual revenue assuming everyone pays. We don't disconnect for non-payment but members in good standing would take priority over non-paying members. This would cover hardware support and Arin fees and accounting expense with the remainder going If we extended the full fees to all 10G ports this would generate $70k annually. Looking out, I don't think we will need to raise that much cash to keep operating as we are now. Ongoing Expense looks something like this: Arin: $300 Accounting: $1800 (includes postage for billing) Hardware support: $15000 This financial projection assumes we add no additional ports than what is currently allocated. I'm seeking input/amendment from the membership prior to the board taking action for the 2017 year. -- 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

Dec. 1, 2016

MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Jason Hanke

All- Our main switch is nearing the end of its lifespan and the available port count is dwindling. At the current rate of burn we will be out of ports in early-2017. USI has arranged for Arista Networks to donate a 7504 switch with 32x100G and 96x10G ports with one year of support. In year 2, MICE would be responsible for the ongoing support costs about 14k per year. There would be one additional slot for future growth. I would like to make a formal request for comment and add the following item to the UG agenda. Here's what I'd propose: 1G ports= Free (Only 1 port per member, NO LAG allowed) Initial 10G port= $250 Annual Each additional 10G port $1000 Annual per port (up to 8 member LAG allowed) 100G port $3000 Annual per port Remote switch operators pay the fee for their main switch ports. Remote switch participants do not pay a main switch port fee. No grandfathering, all types of networks are treated the same. We will not disconnect for non-payment until port run out and contention occurs. A policy will need to be developed. New ports billed at time of allocation. Each carrier provides their own optic. Arista has agreed to remove the vendor lockout for optics. This will yield about $37k of annual revenue assuming everyone pays. We don't disconnect for non-payment but members in good standing would take priority over non-paying members. This would cover hardware support and Arin fees and accounting expense with the remainder going If we extended the full fees to all 10G ports this would generate $70k annually. Looking out, I don't think we will need to raise that much cash to keep operating as we are now. Ongoing Expense looks something like this: Arin: $300 Accounting: $1800 (includes postage for billing) Hardware support: $15000 This financial projection assumes we add no additional ports than what is currently allocated. I'm seeking input/amendment from the membership prior to the board taking action for the 2017 year. -- 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

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: GigaPoP Remote Switch

by David Farmer

We going to sponsor/operate a full blown remote switch soonish, likely 100G connected we working our way through a major purchasing cycle and have interest from a number of other entities. Please be patient, the wheels of bureaucracy grind slowly, but inevitably. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 30, 2016, at 19:07, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > Should the GigaPoP be considered a "remote switch" for MICE? > > According to the participants list, WiscNet is connecting via the > GigaPoP, but has their own IP. So it seems some layer 2 switching is > happening there. > > -- > Richard

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: GigaPoP Remote Switch

by Jeremy Lumby

I would think it should be considered one. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 7:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] GigaPoP Remote Switch Should the GigaPoP be considered a "remote switch" for MICE? According to the participants list, WiscNet is connecting via the GigaPoP, but has their own IP. So it seems some layer 2 switching is happening there. -- Richard

Dec. 1, 2016

GigaPoP Remote Switch

by Richard Laager

Should the GigaPoP be considered a "remote switch" for MICE? According to the participants list, WiscNet is connecting via the GigaPoP, but has their own IP. So it seems some layer 2 switching is happening there. -- Richard

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: Please allocate xe-2/0/8 to Arvig

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:09:52AM -0600, Jason Hanke wrote: > Please allocate xe-2/0/8 on the main switch to Arvig. > > This will be their second port and they would like to convert to LAG. Sure, I have allocated xe-2/0/8 to Arvig as the their 2nd 10G link, setting them up in LAG group ae14, with LACP. They can contact us whenever they are ready to swing xe-0/0/7 into the LAG as well. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Nov. 30, 2016

Re: Please allocate port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop

by Jason Hanke

I had 2 requests in November for additional Gigapop connections. If the Gigapop doesn't need the last one we can reallocate it. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > That was the 4th. > xe-0/0/11.0 > xe-0/0/12.0 > xe-2/0/27.0 > are talking now > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:59:49AM -0600, Colin Murphy wrote: >> Jason & Doug, >> How many ports are now assigned to the GigaPoP? We were just recently >> assigned xe-2/0/27 for a total of 3 x 10 LAG. If a 4th was assigned, we >> don't need it at this time. >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Colin Murphy >> Sr. Network Engineer >> Office of Information Technology >> University of Minnesota >> Northern Lights Gigapop >> Desk: 612-626-0870 >> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:57:45AM -0600, Jason Hanke wrote: >> > > Please add port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop lag. >> > > >> > > Welcome aboard (again)! >> > >> > Sure, all set, added this port into LAG ae0 to turnup alongside the others. >> > >> > -- >> > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> >> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ >> > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades >> > > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades -- 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

Nov. 30, 2016

Re: Please allocate port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop

by Doug McIntyre

That was the 4th. xe-0/0/11.0 xe-0/0/12.0 xe-2/0/27.0 are talking now On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:59:49AM -0600, Colin Murphy wrote: > Jason & Doug, > How many ports are now assigned to the GigaPoP? We were just recently > assigned xe-2/0/27 for a total of 3 x 10 LAG. If a 4th was assigned, we > don't need it at this time. > > > Thanks, > > Colin Murphy > Sr. Network Engineer > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > Northern Lights Gigapop > Desk: 612-626-0870 > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:57:45AM -0600, Jason Hanke wrote: > > > Please add port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop lag. > > > > > > Welcome aboard (again)! > > > > Sure, all set, added this port into LAG ae0 to turnup alongside the others. > > > > -- > > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > > -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Nov. 30, 2016

Re: Please allocate port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop

by Colin Murphy

Jason & Doug, How many ports are now assigned to the GigaPoP? We were just recently assigned xe-2/0/27 for a total of 3 x 10 LAG. If a 4th was assigned, we don't need it at this time. Thanks, Colin Murphy Sr. Network Engineer Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota Northern Lights Gigapop Desk: 612-626-0870 On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:57:45AM -0600, Jason Hanke wrote: > > Please add port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop lag. > > > > Welcome aboard (again)! > > Sure, all set, added this port into LAG ae0 to turnup alongside the others. > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades >

Nov. 30, 2016

Re: Please allocate port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:57:45AM -0600, Jason Hanke wrote: > Please add port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop lag. > > Welcome aboard (again)! Sure, all set, added this port into LAG ae0 to turnup alongside the others. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Nov. 30, 2016

Please allocate port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop

by Jason Hanke

Please add port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop lag. Welcome aboard (again)! -- 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

Nov. 30, 2016

MICE 10G Ports

by Jason Hanke

We are VERY low on 10G ports on the main switch. There are several 10G ports that are down or exchanging very little traffic: Onvoy xe-0/0/5 Unggoy xe-2/0/2 (initial turn up) HBC xe-2/0/10 Fastly xe-0/2/0,xe2/0/5 (initial turn up) Amazon ae1 (initial turn up) -- 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

Nov. 30, 2016

Please allocate xe-2/0/8 to Arvig

by Jason Hanke

Please allocate xe-2/0/8 on the main switch to Arvig. This will be their second port and they would like to convert to LAG. -- 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

Nov. 30, 2016

UG 22 - Call for Agenda

by Richard Laager

If you have agenda items for the upcoming UG 22, please send them to me. -- Richard

Nov. 29, 2016

Re: Fee Poll results

by Reid Fishler

I believe the board will have something a little more structured shortly. Reid On Nov 28, 2016 12:27 PM, "Andrew Hoyos" <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Not sure if Facebook is the best way to gather a good representation of > the entire member base? > Could we do the same poll via a google form or something? I’d be happy to > set something up. > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com > > > > > On Nov 28, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> > wrote: > > > > Here are the results from the over the weekend Fee poll: > > > > Recurring (Annual or Monthly Fees) 12 votes > > One time Fees 8 votes > > Optional, but invoiced to begin with 3 votes > > No Fees 1 vote > > > > -- > > 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 > >

Nov. 28, 2016

Re: Fee Poll results

by Andrew Hoyos

Not sure if Facebook is the best way to gather a good representation of the entire member base? Could we do the same poll via a google form or something? I’d be happy to set something up. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Nov 28, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: > > Here are the results from the over the weekend Fee poll: > > Recurring (Annual or Monthly Fees) 12 votes > One time Fees 8 votes > Optional, but invoiced to begin with 3 votes > No Fees 1 vote > > -- > 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

Nov. 28, 2016

Fee Poll results

by Jason Hanke

Here are the results from the over the weekend Fee poll: Recurring (Annual or Monthly Fees) 12 votes One time Fees 8 votes Optional, but invoiced to begin with 3 votes No Fees 1 vote -- 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

Nov. 28, 2016

Port Fees Poll

by Jason Hanke

I've posted a Facebook poll looking for member input on port fees: https://www.facebook.com/events/179450035795693/permalink/197514153989281/ Also, please rsvp on the facebook event. -- 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

Nov. 25, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Dave Williams

I would like to connect to them to have access to both their services and MICE from 1 cross connect. This idea isn't new, it's why we are connected to Mankato's remote switch. Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)GMAIL.COM> Date: 11/22/16 10:54 AM (GMT-06:00) To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having this in place? Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch at 511. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Jeremy Lumby

To further add to Anthony's comments, I plan on keeping the MICE access portion of the remote switch completely free even if MICE starts charging port fees on the main switch. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 11:57 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. In this respect Jeremy's plan is similar to the CNS and Mankato Networks remote switches, which are both within a few dozen feet of the main switch stack. I can certainly picture that potential members who were quite small would need to carefully weigh the cost of a dedicated main switch cross connect, especially in the beginning when the value-add is unknown. If I put my "guy counting the traffic" hat on I'd like to be able to enumerate the individual member's links, but understand that if their switch port is used for multiple things breaking out MICE traffic will be problematic so we'd need to just count the aggregate uplink in/out traffic. That's what we do with the Mankato Networks remote switch today. With my MICE tech hat on we've said that if a participant was causing trouble behind a remote switch we didn't have access to we'd cut off the remote switch's uplink if we were unable to get ahold of the remote switch operator. That's the situation with the Neutral Path and CNS remote switches today (not that we've ever had trouble with them.) So my $0.02 would be that as we've grown we've struggled with how to keep costs reasonable for smaller members, and that this provides them with one more option to participate - so it's all good. Cheers, anthony Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net www.nutelecom.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:54 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having this in place? Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch at 511. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Shaun Carlson

I'm on board with this. I think the more we can do to help the smaller members afford to connect, the better. s *Shaun Carlson*Director of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:56 AM, anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net < anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net> wrote: > > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. > > In this respect Jeremy's plan is similar to the CNS and Mankato Networks > remote switches, which are both within a few dozen feet of the main switch > stack. I can certainly picture that potential members who were quite small > would need to carefully weigh the cost of a dedicated main switch cross > connect, especially in the beginning when the value-add is unknown. > > If I put my "guy counting the traffic" hat on I'd like to be able to > enumerate the individual member's links, but understand that if their > switch port is used for multiple things breaking out MICE traffic will be > problematic so we'd need to just count the aggregate uplink in/out > traffic. That's what we do with the Mankato Networks remote switch today. > > With my MICE tech hat on we've said that if a participant was causing > trouble behind a remote switch we didn't have access to we'd cut off the > remote switch's uplink if we were unable to get ahold of the remote switch > operator. That's the situation with the Neutral Path and CNS remote > switches today (not that we've ever had trouble with them.) > > So my $0.02 would be that as we've grown we've struggled with how to keep > costs reasonable for smaller members, and that this provides them with one > more option to participate - so it's all good. > > Cheers, > anthony > > Anthony Anderberg > Sr. Systems Analyst > 320-234-5239 > anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net > www.nutelecom.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of > Andrew Hoyos > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:54 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > > > On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. > > Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be > enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, > beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional > transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having > this in place? > > Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch > at 511. > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com >

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by anthonyanderberg＠nu-telecom.net

> Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. In this respect Jeremy's plan is similar to the CNS and Mankato Networks remote switches, which are both within a few dozen feet of the main switch stack. I can certainly picture that potential members who were quite small would need to carefully weigh the cost of a dedicated main switch cross connect, especially in the beginning when the value-add is unknown. If I put my "guy counting the traffic" hat on I'd like to be able to enumerate the individual member's links, but understand that if their switch port is used for multiple things breaking out MICE traffic will be problematic so we'd need to just count the aggregate uplink in/out traffic. That's what we do with the Mankato Networks remote switch today. With my MICE tech hat on we've said that if a participant was causing trouble behind a remote switch we didn't have access to we'd cut off the remote switch's uplink if we were unable to get ahold of the remote switch operator. That's the situation with the Neutral Path and CNS remote switches today (not that we've ever had trouble with them.) So my $0.02 would be that as we've grown we've struggled with how to keep costs reasonable for smaller members, and that this provides them with one more option to participate - so it's all good. Cheers, anthony Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net www.nutelecom.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:54 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having this in place? Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch at 511. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Jeremy Lumby

The value exists in connecting more smaller participants to MICE. Right now the price of the cross connect can be a deterrent for people who are pushing less than 100M My hope is to bring more people in by offering my other services alongside MICE access on the same cross connect. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:54 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having this in place? Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch at 511. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Andrew Hoyos

> On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having this in place? Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch at 511. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Nov. 22, 2016