- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Please welcome Fastly to MICE!

by Jason Hanke

There is also a peeringDB API. It might be time for a database driven documentation. Then we could export/import to dns or switch configs. An online request form might be a good start. On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > The exchange only cares about the max prefix value if it's larger than > our default route server limit of 1000. That's a big network, and I > think we've only hit that once. I'm not sure we need to bother getting > an explicit number from every network on turn-up. > > On the PeeringDB thing... I've thought about that before too. Is > *requiring* an entry going too far? I'm on the fence about that. > > I see that SIX links the AS number in the participants list to PeeringDB > rather than bgp.he.net. I like the bgp.he.net links, but I should see if > I can find some place on the list to put a PeeringDB link. > > -- > Richard -- 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, 2016

Re: MICE core switch maintenance window - 10/27/2016 12:30AM-1:00AM CDT

by Richard Laager

On 10/25/2016 09:40 AM, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > My suggestion would be for the formal creation of a technical committee by the board This is something I intend to work on soon, but the tax-exempt thing is higher priority. I'm envisioning: 1) making a page on the MICE website like the following page: https://www.seattleix.net/whos-who 2) asking the board to ACK its contents 3) asking for a MICE-TECH and/or MICE-OPS list be created (depending on whether we have distinct groups and what those people want). I expect at least one list will be closed to members only. -- Richard

Oct. 25, 2016

Re: Please welcome Fastly to MICE!

by Richard Laager

The exchange only cares about the max prefix value if it's larger than our default route server limit of 1000. That's a big network, and I think we've only hit that once. I'm not sure we need to bother getting an explicit number from every network on turn-up. On the PeeringDB thing... I've thought about that before too. Is *requiring* an entry going too far? I'm on the fence about that. I see that SIX links the AS number in the participants list to PeeringDB rather than bgp.he.net. I like the bgp.he.net links, but I should see if I can find some place on the list to put a PeeringDB link. -- Richard

Oct. 25, 2016

Re: Please Welcome Unggoy Broadband to MICE!

by Jason Hanke

Assignment sheet updated On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:28:27PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote: >> On 10/25/2016 01:15 PM, anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net wrote: >> > Anyway NU-Telecom is in 2/0/7 now >> >> The original (off-list) email about the bad port swap said 2/0/2. (I >> checked.) Given that NU-Telecom is actually in 2/0/7, I've fixed that on >> the website. >> >> Unless we hear differently from Jay, the obvious answer is that Unggoy >> Broadband is now assigned 2/0/2. That's what I put on the website, but >> obviously I can change it if need be. > > > Sounds good to me, I updated the port description since there aren't > optics in xe-2/0/2, and we'll leave xe-2/0/7 to NU-Telecom. > > -- > 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

Oct. 25, 2016

Re: Please Welcome Unggoy Broadband to MICE!

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 01:28:27PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote: > On 10/25/2016 01:15 PM, anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net wrote: > > Anyway NU-Telecom is in 2/0/7 now > > The original (off-list) email about the bad port swap said 2/0/2. (I > checked.) Given that NU-Telecom is actually in 2/0/7, I've fixed that on > the website. > > Unless we hear differently from Jay, the obvious answer is that Unggoy > Broadband is now assigned 2/0/2. That's what I put on the website, but > obviously I can change it if need be. Sounds good to me, I updated the port description since there aren't optics in xe-2/0/2, and we'll leave xe-2/0/7 to NU-Telecom. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 25, 2016

Re: Please Welcome Unggoy Broadband to MICE!

by Richard Laager

On 10/25/2016 01:15 PM, anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net wrote: > Anyway NU-Telecom is in 2/0/7 now The original (off-list) email about the bad port swap said 2/0/2. (I checked.) Given that NU-Telecom is actually in 2/0/7, I've fixed that on the website. Unless we hear differently from Jay, the obvious answer is that Unggoy Broadband is now assigned 2/0/2. That's what I put on the website, but obviously I can change it if need be. -- Richard

Oct. 25, 2016

Re: Please Welcome Unggoy Broadband to MICE!

by anthonyanderberg＠nu-telecom.net

Sorry, that's my fault - after the copper switch work a couple weeks ago the my NU-Telecom port 0/0/15 didn't come back up. After different SFP+ didn't fix the issue we moved NU-Telecom to port 2/0/7 but I hadn't gotten documentation cleaned up yet; shoe maker's kid phenomenon I guess. Anyway NU-Telecom is in 2/0/7 now - we haven't had a chance to test 0/0/15 but were going to do that after the upgrade/reboot. Cheers, anthony -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 12:51 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Please Welcome Unggoy Broadband to MICE! On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:04:56PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: > Name: Unggoy Broadband LLC > ASN: 393846 > IPv4: 206.108.255.41/24 > IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:6:0276::1/64 > BFD: Available > Contact: support(a)unggoy.net > Route Servers: Yes > Port: Main Switch xe-2/0/7 Umm, I currently show this port for Nu-Telecom and it has been up for 2w, and Nu-Telecom's assigned port of xe-2/0/2 currently has no optics in that port. Perhaps somebody's 7 turned into a 2 or vice-versa wrongly? -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 25, 2016

Re: Please welcome Fastly to MICE!

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 09:20:52AM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: > Name: Fastly, Inc > ASN: 54113 > IPv4: 206.108.255.72/24 > IPv4: 206.108.255.73/24 > IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:d361::1/64 > IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:d361::2/64 > Ports: Main Switch xe-2/0/25, xe-2/0/26 (NO LAG) > Contact: peering(a)fastly.com > > Route Server and website please, I'm checking on BFD support. Sure, I've got the route servers, switch description and reverse PTRs all set for both these and the Unggoy Broadband entry (once the port assignment is cleared up). Welcome! -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 25, 2016

Re: Please Welcome Unggoy Broadband to MICE!

by Doug McIntyre

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:04:56PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: > Name: Unggoy Broadband LLC > ASN: 393846 > IPv4: 206.108.255.41/24 > IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:6:0276::1/64 > BFD: Available > Contact: support(a)unggoy.net > Route Servers: Yes > Port: Main Switch xe-2/0/7 Umm, I currently show this port for Nu-Telecom and it has been up for 2w, and Nu-Telecom's assigned port of xe-2/0/2 currently has no optics in that port. Perhaps somebody's 7 turned into a 2 or vice-versa wrongly? -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 25, 2016

Re: Please welcome Fastly to MICE!

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 04:35:59PM +0000, Justin Krejci wrote: > For example, I notice we don't have an official position (at least not a documented official position which arguably means we don't have a position) on PTR records for the member IP addresses. I realize PTRs are not significantly important but they can be useful when troubleshooting and having them I feel gives a little extra polish to the exchange in general. ... Documentation and policy writing sucks loads and loads of time out of people, just as an experience point. It is difficult to get anybody to do that sort of thing in general. I've switched on the PTR updates from batches to doing it more on demand on turn up notices from Jay now. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 25, 2016

Re: Please welcome Fastly to MICE!

by Justin Krejci

Awesome! Welcome Fastly! TL;DR: Things are good and happy. The people doing the work are doing a good job. I have some ideas/comments on ways we could improve. As I was reading this e-mail I did some quick checking on the newly joining organization, as I do with all of the new member joining announcements. It is nice to see another CDN joining in this case. I then like to see how many prefix counts they may be contributing to the exchange so I typically check them out in peeringdb.com. This got me thinking that it may be a good idea to have a requirement that joining networks have and maintain their peeringdb.com record. I am guessing many others find it useful like I do to have an approximate prefix count expected. I know some people like to keep their max-prefix limits set near to the expected prefix count when on the route servers. A joining company's prefix count could also be requested up front, especially if they do intend to peer to the route servers, which then could be included in the new member announcement e-mail. This way people can adjust their max prefix settings accordingly in advance. This is especially useful in the case of a larger prefix count network before they unload onto the exchange, like HE has recently done. (thumbs up on that) >From my perspective, it's been consistent and smooth on the turn ups of new networks on the exchange so I am not criticizing at all but similar to a line of discussion on a different thread, it may not be a bad idea to have a documented template/process for all of the things needed in the turn up of a new network. Plus I like the idea of sharing our collectively learned knowledge in building up the exchange with the general internet for others to potentially benefit from or even possibly for others to offer suggestions to us to help us improve our exchange. For example, I notice we don't have an official position (at least not a documented official position which arguably means we don't have a position) on PTR records for the member IP addresses. I realize PTRs are not significantly important but they can be useful when troubleshooting and having them I feel gives a little extra polish to the exchange in general. To reiterate/elaborate, I think that Jay, Doug, Richard, Anthony, etc. have been doing an excellent job with getting new organizations up and running and getting the requisite website/cacti components updated to reflect the changes. ________________________________________ From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Jason Hanke [jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET] Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 9:20 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Please welcome Fastly to MICE! Name: Fastly, Inc ASN: 54113 IPv4: 206.108.255.72/24 IPv4: 206.108.255.73/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:d361::1/64 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:d361::2/64 Ports: Main Switch xe-2/0/25, xe-2/0/26 (NO LAG) Contact: peering(a)fastly.com Route Server and website please, I'm checking on BFD support. 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, 2016

Re: Donation Thank You

by Richard Laager

On 10/25/2016 09:24 AM, Jason Hanke wrote: > Please thank Hoyos Consulting for a $2100 Paypal donation this morning! Thanks! I updated the website donations page. -- Richard

Oct. 25, 2016

Re: MICE core switch maintenance window - 10/27/2016 12:30AM-1:00AM CDT

by Jeremy Lumby

I agree standards would help, however I know that my personal donations to MICE would probably have been far less if I was forced to do it on a corporate standard schedule, and lets remember donations like that got us here, and I would prefer not to lose donors over standards, and I do not feel membership will be impacted because of lack of standards since all of our current members have gotten along quite well all this time without them. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Colin Baker Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 9:58 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE core switch maintenance window - 10/27/2016 12:30AM-1:00AM CDT On 25.10.2016 09:40, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > > Lack of a surplus of cash or charging fees seems to have little if > nothing to do with having some operational norms and > processes/timelines that we could all agree to follow. > > I’m not discounting Doug’s willingness to do the upgrade at all, it’s > the process by which it’s happened, and I think we can do better as a > group to bring some sane operational due process and some standards we > can all agree to follow as a community when it comes to things like > this (upgrades, changes, etc) to minimize impact to the IX and it’s > members. > > If folks feel differently as a group, I’ll bite my tongue and turn the > other way — but we’re big enough now where folks are paying attention > to this sort of thing. > > My suggestion would be for the formal creation of a technical > committee by the board, which can work on and implement these > operational details in a way that works for everyone. > I remember some discussion in a MICE UG meeting a few years back that some larger networks may have strict requirements that must be met in order to connect to the exchange. We've added some big content providers recently, which I'm thrilled to see, but I think establishing some defined and documented standards can only help continue the growth. -- 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. 25, 2016

Re: MICE core switch maintenance window - 10/27/2016 12:30AM-1:00AM CDT

by Colin Baker

On 25.10.2016 09:40, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > > Lack of a surplus of cash or charging fees seems to have little if > nothing to do with having some operational norms and > processes/timelines that we could all agree to follow. > > I’m not discounting Doug’s willingness to do the upgrade at all, it’s > the process by which it’s happened, and I think we can do better as a > group to bring some sane operational due process and some standards we > can all agree to follow as a community when it comes to things like > this (upgrades, changes, etc) to minimize impact to the IX and it’s > members. > > If folks feel differently as a group, I’ll bite my tongue and turn the > other way — but we’re big enough now where folks are paying attention > to this sort of thing. > > My suggestion would be for the formal creation of a technical > committee by the board, which can work on and implement these > operational details in a way that works for everyone. > I remember some discussion in a MICE UG meeting a few years back that some larger networks may have strict requirements that must be met in order to connect to the exchange. We've added some big content providers recently, which I'm thrilled to see, but I think establishing some defined and documented standards can only help continue the growth. -- 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. 25, 2016

Re: MICE core switch maintenance window - 10/27/2016 12:30AM-1:00AM CDT

by Andrew Hoyos

> On Oct 25, 2016, at 7:34 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > If MICE had been built on a surplus of cash, and not donated time/hardware, then I would feel much different. Lack of a surplus of cash or charging fees seems to have little if nothing to do with having some operational norms and processes/timelines that we could all agree to follow. I’m not discounting Doug’s willingness to do the upgrade at all, it’s the process by which it’s happened, and I think we can do better as a group to bring some sane operational due process and some standards we can all agree to follow as a community when it comes to things like this (upgrades, changes, etc) to minimize impact to the IX and it’s members. If folks feel differently as a group, I’ll bite my tongue and turn the other way — but we’re big enough now where folks are paying attention to this sort of thing. My suggestion would be for the formal creation of a technical committee by the board, which can work on and implement these operational details in a way that works for everyone. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Oct. 25, 2016

Donation Thank You

by Jason Hanke

Please thank Hoyos Consulting for a $2100 Paypal donation this morning! -- 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, 2016

Please welcome Fastly to MICE!

by Jason Hanke

Name: Fastly, Inc ASN: 54113 IPv4: 206.108.255.72/24 IPv4: 206.108.255.73/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:d361::1/64 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:d361::2/64 Ports: Main Switch xe-2/0/25, xe-2/0/26 (NO LAG) Contact: peering(a)fastly.com Route Server and website please, I'm checking on BFD support. 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, 2016

Re: MICE core switch maintenance window - 10/27/2016 12:30AM-1:00AM CDT

by Mike Horwath

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 07:34:00AM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > If MICE had been built on a surplus of cash, and not donated > time/hardware, then I would feel much different. Hear hear! -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Oct. 25, 2016

Re: MICE core switch maintenance window - 10/27/2016 12:30AM-1:00AM CDT

by Jeremy Lumby

As one of the other 60+ members, I am offering my $0.02. Honestly I think Doug has gone above, and beyond with his notification window, as well as willingness to do it during a low traffic period. If I was the one doing the work, it would be in the middle of the day, and would be thrown together at the last minute when I happened to know I was going past Cologix for some other reason. Since there have never been port fees, and even when they do come about, there is a lot of opposition to making them mandatory, or recurring, I think the membership needs to judge the exchange on the value it has been, and will be providing, and not some formalized service level agreement that in the industry is typically just a document that says if we screw up here is how much we will refund. I feel it is far more important to allow Doug to do it on his time since people like him have made the donations that are the only reason that MICE has made it as far and done as well as it has. If MICE had been built on a surplus of cash, and not donated time/hardware, then I would feel much different. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2016 12:00 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE core switch maintenance window - 10/27/2016 12:30AM-1:00AM CDT On Oct 24, 2016, at 11:29 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 08:22:46PM -0500, Andrew Hoyos wrote: >> Also, given how big MICE has become and some of the players involved, I’d think we can do better than 3 days advance notice on service affecting work that will take down the the majority of the IX? > > OOTH, if you get out past 7 days you have the problem that people > forget about the window, and are blindsided by it actually happening. > I get more complaints about further out windows than shorter. Hrm, 7-10 days seems to be industry standard for this sort of thing, and in practice, I personally have never had anyone complain about providing *more* advance notice for service affecting work. Calendars and all….. > I would typically aim for 6 days, but didn't want to do it during MEA, > and now Holloween is coming up as well. Given 2.5 solid days (not > weekend), went with a window that fit around my and other's schedule. Understood, and truly appreciate you volunteering to do the work, however, what about the input of the other 60+ members of MICE into this? Unless I've completely missed something, this all seems very unstructured and ad-hoc. Board folks and community - I’d encourage some more discussion here on governance of the technical side of the IX, including how and when changes are scheduled/approved, and perhaps some formalization of a technical committee. I think we’ve reached a point where continuing to do things ad-hoc paints a shaky picture. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Oct. 25, 2016

Re: MICE Port Runout

by Shaun Carlson

Andrew, that is my understanding as well from previous research. Basically, once you file, assume the status is approved. The status will be retroactive to the date of filing. It's the IRS' was of saying, we know we'll take a while, so don't wait up on our account. s Shaun Carlson Director of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346.8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:28 PM -0500, "Andrew Hoyos" <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 24, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > > On 10/24/2016 09:56 PM, Larry Patterson wrote: >> So assuming paperwork happens in a timely fashion, donations after the >> filing date would be tax deductible for 2016? Is that the agreed upon >> direction? If so, I would suggest we get some end of year charitable >> giving going on. I would be interested in participating. What do the >> lawyers say about 2016 vs. 2017 status? > > Assuming the IRS accepts our application, I'm not sure how retroactive > it will be. IANAL, but: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-law-compliance-before-exempt-… and https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/contribu… Seems to imply that 2016 contributions would be safe (as long as the MICE legal entity was planning on filing a 990 for 2016 for income/donations received). -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Oct. 25, 2016

Re: MICE core switch maintenance window - 10/27/2016 12:30AM-1:00AM CDT

by Andrew Hoyos

On Oct 24, 2016, at 1:20 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > > We're going to upgrade the core MICE 10G switches coming up this week > on Wednesday night/ Thursday morning at 12:30AM-1:00AM CDT on 27 October. This should probably be sent to MICE-ANNOUNCE as well. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Oct. 25, 2016

Re: MICE core switch maintenance window - 10/27/2016 12:30AM-1:00AM CDT

by Andrew Hoyos

On Oct 24, 2016, at 11:29 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 08:22:46PM -0500, Andrew Hoyos wrote: >> Also, given how big MICE has become and some of the players involved, I’d think we can do better than 3 days advance notice on service affecting work that will take down the the majority of the IX? > > OOTH, if you get out past 7 days you have the problem that people > forget about the window, and are blindsided by it actually happening. > I get more complaints about further out windows than shorter. Hrm, 7-10 days seems to be industry standard for this sort of thing, and in practice, I personally have never had anyone complain about providing *more* advance notice for service affecting work. Calendars and all….. > I would typically aim for 6 days, but didn't want to do it during MEA, > and now Holloween is coming up as well. Given 2.5 solid days (not > weekend), went with a window that fit around my and other's schedule. Understood, and truly appreciate you volunteering to do the work, however, what about the input of the other 60+ members of MICE into this? Unless I've completely missed something, this all seems very unstructured and ad-hoc. Board folks and community - I’d encourage some more discussion here on governance of the technical side of the IX, including how and when changes are scheduled/approved, and perhaps some formalization of a technical committee. I think we’ve reached a point where continuing to do things ad-hoc paints a shaky picture. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Oct. 25, 2016

Re: MICE core switch maintenance window - 10/27/2016 12:30AM-1:00AM CDT

by Doug McIntyre

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 08:14:17PM -0500, Richard Laager wrote: > On 10/24/2016 01:20 PM, Doug McIntyre wrote: > > We're going to upgrade the core MICE 10G switches > > Has it been MICE practice to block BGP using a L4 ACL before the > maintenance? There hasn't been that many maintenance periods, like 3 events, one was unintended AFAIK. But we could, it wouldn't be too difficult. > Something like this: > https://www.nanog.org/sites/default/files/wednesday.general-lt.hargrave.ixp… I can implement this 5 minutes before the upgrade. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 25, 2016

Re: MICE core switch maintenance window - 10/27/2016 12:30AM-1:00AM CDT

by Doug McIntyre

On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 08:22:46PM -0500, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > Also, given how big MICE has become and some of the players involved, I’d think we can do better than 3 days advance notice on service affecting work that will take down the the majority of the IX? OOTH, if you get out past 7 days you have the problem that people forget about the window, and are blindsided by it actually happening. I get more complaints about further out windows than shorter. I would typically aim for 6 days, but didn't want to do it during MEA, and now Holloween is coming up as well. Given 2.5 solid days (not weekend), went with a window that fit around my and other's schedule. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Oct. 25, 2016

Re: MICE Port Runout

by Andrew Hoyos

> On Oct 24, 2016, at 10:19 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > On 10/24/2016 09:56 PM, Larry Patterson wrote: >> So assuming paperwork happens in a timely fashion, donations after the >> filing date would be tax deductible for 2016? Is that the agreed upon >> direction? If so, I would suggest we get some end of year charitable >> giving going on. I would be interested in participating. What do the >> lawyers say about 2016 vs. 2017 status? > > Assuming the IRS accepts our application, I'm not sure how retroactive > it will be. IANAL, but: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/tax-law-compliance-before-exempt-… and https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/contribu… Seems to imply that 2016 contributions would be safe (as long as the MICE legal entity was planning on filing a 990 for 2016 for income/donations received). -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Oct. 25, 2016