- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Application for Extension Node

by David Farmer

On 6/4/15 15:48 , Hannigan, Martin wrote: >> On Jun 4, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)HE.NET> wrote: >> >> Marty- >> As with SIX, the node operates as an extension. The core switch/switches will remain in Cologix. > > Suboptimal, unfortunately. Yes, this is not fully optimal yet, I want to see at least a second core site eventually. However, given; 1. This is our first announced remote site. 2. There are other remote sites in the pipeline, I believe. 3. Finally, none of the remote sites are even operational yet. Therefore, I suggest we defer the issue of another core site until the remote site picture develops a little bit. At this point picking the correct facility for an additional core site is premature, we are more likely to pick wrong than right at this point. I'm happy to consider the issue when there are operational remote sites with more than 2 or 3 participants each. Thanks -- ================================================ David Farmer Email: farmer(a)umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952 ================================================

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Jason Hanke

>> As with SIX, the node operates as an extension. The core switch/switches will remain in Cologix. >> > Suboptimal, unfortunately. > Marty, Could you clarify? If the switch is connected with plenty of bandwidth what difference does it make if we call it core or remote? Methinks the hardware is equivalent or at least on par with the core gear in this case. Jay

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Richard Laager

Martin, Can you provide a specific, *actionable* proposal of what it is you'd like the exchange entity to do? For example: I want MICE LLC to create a second, separate and co-equal site at location X. By separate, I mean it would not be interconnected with the existing switches at 511. We need a switch with Y ports of 10 Gig, which will be provided by company Z. Companies A & B are also committed to peer there and I believe this meets the requirements for an IP allocation from ARIN. Or: I want MICE LLC to lease space and power at, and fibers from 511 to location X. That is, MICE is responsible for hauling traffic between sites. We need a switch with Y ports of 10 Gig. The revenue to pay for this will come from company Z for the first A years. Or: I want MICE LLC to lease space, power, and fibers from 511 to location X. That is, MICE is responsible for hauling traffic between sites. We need a switch with Y ports of 10 Gig. The revenue to pay for this will come from charging member and port fees in the amount of $A/year and $B/year. Or whatever it is that you're actually proposing. -- Richard

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Steve Howard

On 06/04/2015 03:53 PM, Hannigan, Martin wrote: >> On Jun 4, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)HE.NET> wrote: >> >> Marty- >> There is no reason at all to put a core node where there are no peers.If at some point the users wish to make any extension node a core node, that can be voted on. SIX does this successfully, there is no reason why we cannot as well. >> >> Reid > We disagree. > > Best, > > -M< > It has been a long day so maybe I'm just not thinking clearly. But, what exactly is a "core" node in this context? Looking over the SIX page at: https://www.seattleix.net/topology.html I can't see how the Extension switches that are connected to their Arista switch are any different than their Extreme & Nexus switches that are in their "core". Is "core" determined by who owns it? who maintains it? number of connected hosts? "network-central" location? total bandwidth? spanning tree priority (!!!)? Is there some layer 3 routing in there somewhere? I'm confused! Please enlighten me!

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Hannigan, Martin

> On Jun 4, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)HE.NET> wrote: > > Marty- > There is no reason at all to put a core node where there are no peers.If at some point the users wish to make any extension node a core node, that can be voted on. SIX does this successfully, there is no reason why we cannot as well. > > Reid We disagree. Best, -M<

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Reid Fishler

Marty- There is no reason at all to put a core node where there are no peers.If at some point the users wish to make any extension node a core node, that can be voted on. SIX does this successfully, there is no reason why we cannot as well. Reid On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)HE.NET> wrote: > > > > Marty- > > As with SIX, the node operates as an extension. The core > switch/switches will remain in Cologix. > > > > > > Suboptimal, unfortunately. > > > Best, > > -M< > > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Hannigan, Martin

> On Jun 4, 2015, at 12:14 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)HE.NET> wrote: > > Marty- > As with SIX, the node operates as an extension. The core switch/switches will remain in Cologix. > Suboptimal, unfortunately. Best, -M<

June 4, 2015

Re: Route Server stability

by Jeff Anderson

That’s us switching out CWDM gear over the last couple days! Jeff Anderson jeffa(a)implex.net<mailto:jeffa@implex.net> 612.799.7277 Cell 612.339.8255 x200 Office 612.339.3310 Fax [cid:image001.jpg@01D09EDD.4B2A0370] From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Tim Peiffer Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 12:16 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Route Server stability Yes. 206.108.255.5 . I apologize for confusing the addresses with the route servers. I will contact implex directly.. again, my apologies. Tim On 6/4/15 11:57 AM, Matthew Beckwell wrote: Tim, The IP/AS you referenced belongs to Implex...is that the peer you're seeing drop? ~Matthew On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Tim Peiffer <peiffer(a)umn.edu<mailto:peiffer@umn.edu>> wrote: The route reflectors have been bouncing a few times in the last 2 days. The connections had been pretty stable since the route reflectors were swapped out back at the end of March. 206.108.255.5/AS21709.micemn.net<http://206.108.255.5/AS21709.micemn.net> -- Tim Peiffer Network Support Engineer Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota/NorthernLights GigaPOP +1 612 626-7884<tel:%2B1%20612%20626-7884> (desk) ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 -- Tim Peiffer Network Support Engineer Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota/NorthernLights GigaPOP +1 612 626-7884 (desk) ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Beatrice, Tim L

6875 Shady Oak Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Tim Beatrice Charter Communications From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Reid Fishler Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 2:25 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Application for Extension Node You would have to ask them. Reid On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com<mailto:hoyosa@gmail.com>> wrote: Where’s Edgeconnex located at in MSP? On Jun 4, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net<mailto:rfishler@he.net>> wrote: I am pleased to announce that Edgeconnex Minneapolis has applied to be an extension node as per the rules we discussed at the last meeting. They will be providing us with the gear and connectivity to their site, and have promised to make a donation to the exchange as well. Does anyone have any objections to Edgeconnex being approved for an extension node? The board does not see an issue. Reid -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178<tel:%2B1-510-580-4178> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Jason Hanke

> Are they going to be charging port fees to their side of the link > customers? If so will that cause issues? When I operated a remote switch I charged some cost recovery fees on 10G ports. I'm not sure what CNS currently does. I don't think charging is a problem as if one of the remote switch operators isn't playing fair one can move their bits elsewhere. jay

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Reid Fishler

You would have to ask them. Reid On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:20 PM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Where’s Edgeconnex located at in MSP? > > > On Jun 4, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net> wrote: > > I am pleased to announce that Edgeconnex Minneapolis has applied to be an > extension node as per the rules we discussed at the last meeting. They will > be providing us with the gear and connectivity to their site, and have > promised to make a donation to the exchange as well. Does anyone have any > objections to Edgeconnex being approved for an extension node? The board > does not see an issue. > > Reid > > > -- > Reid Fishler > Director > Hurricane Electric > +1-510-580-4178 > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Andrew Hoyos

Where’s Edgeconnex located at in MSP? > On Jun 4, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net> wrote: > > I am pleased to announce that Edgeconnex Minneapolis has applied to be an extension node as per the rules we discussed at the last meeting. They will be providing us with the gear and connectivity to their site, and have promised to make a donation to the exchange as well. Does anyone have any objections to Edgeconnex being approved for an extension node? The board does not see an issue. > > Reid > > > -- > Reid Fishler > Director > Hurricane Electric > +1-510-580-4178 > > 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>

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Reid Fishler

Marty- As with SIX, the node operates as an extension. The core switch/switches will remain in Cologix. Reid On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)GEEKS.ORG> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 01:46:22PM -0400, Reid Fishler wrote: > >> I am pleased to announce that Edgeconnex Minneapolis has applied to > >> be an extension node as per the rules we discussed at the last > >> meeting. They will be providing us with the gear and connectivity to > >> their site, and have promised to make a donation to the exchange as > >> well. Does anyone have any objections to Edgeconnex being approved > >> for an extension node? The board does not see an issue. > > > > I missed the last couple of meetings cause I suck. > > > > Are they going to be charging port fees to their side of the link > > customers? If so will that cause issues? > > > > -- > > Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG > > > May as well lump all the questions here. Alternative/branches to Cologix? > > Thanks! > > -M< > > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Reid Fishler

They have the right to charge whatever they wish to charge, but they must maintain the performance on the link to the core. The program is based off of what SIX does. Reid On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)geeks.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 01:46:22PM -0400, Reid Fishler wrote: > > I am pleased to announce that Edgeconnex Minneapolis has applied to > > be an extension node as per the rules we discussed at the last > > meeting. They will be providing us with the gear and connectivity to > > their site, and have promised to make a donation to the exchange as > > well. Does anyone have any objections to Edgeconnex being approved > > for an extension node? The board does not see an issue. > > I missed the last couple of meetings cause I suck. > > Are they going to be charging port fees to their side of the link > customers? If so will that cause issues? > > -- > Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG > > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Hannigan, Martin

> On Jun 4, 2015, at 11:53 AM, Mike Horwath <drechsau(a)GEEKS.ORG> wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 01:46:22PM -0400, Reid Fishler wrote: >> I am pleased to announce that Edgeconnex Minneapolis has applied to >> be an extension node as per the rules we discussed at the last >> meeting. They will be providing us with the gear and connectivity to >> their site, and have promised to make a donation to the exchange as >> well. Does anyone have any objections to Edgeconnex being approved >> for an extension node? The board does not see an issue. > > I missed the last couple of meetings cause I suck. > > Are they going to be charging port fees to their side of the link > customers? If so will that cause issues? > > -- > Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG May as well lump all the questions here. Alternative/branches to Cologix? Thanks! -M<

June 4, 2015

Re: Application for Extension Node

by Mike Horwath

On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 01:46:22PM -0400, Reid Fishler wrote: > I am pleased to announce that Edgeconnex Minneapolis has applied to > be an extension node as per the rules we discussed at the last > meeting. They will be providing us with the gear and connectivity to > their site, and have promised to make a donation to the exchange as > well. Does anyone have any objections to Edgeconnex being approved > for an extension node? The board does not see an issue. I missed the last couple of meetings cause I suck. Are they going to be charging port fees to their side of the link customers? If so will that cause issues? -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

June 4, 2015

Application for Extension Node

by Reid Fishler

I am pleased to announce that Edgeconnex Minneapolis has applied to be an extension node as per the rules we discussed at the last meeting. They will be providing us with the gear and connectivity to their site, and have promised to make a donation to the exchange as well. Does anyone have any objections to Edgeconnex being approved for an extension node? The board does not see an issue. Reid -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

June 4, 2015

Re: Route Server stability

by Tim Peiffer

Yes. 206.108.255.5 . I apologize for confusing the addresses with the route servers. I will contact implex directly.. again, my apologies. Tim On 6/4/15 11:57 AM, Matthew Beckwell wrote: > Tim, > The IP/AS you referenced belongs to Implex...is that the peer you're > seeing drop? > ~Matthew > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Tim Peiffer <peiffer(a)umn.edu > <mailto:peiffer@umn.edu>> wrote: > > The route reflectors have been bouncing a few times in the last 2 > days. The connections had been pretty stable since the route > reflectors were swapped out back at the end of March. > > 206.108.255.5/AS21709.micemn.net > <http://206.108.255.5/AS21709.micemn.net> > > > -- > Tim Peiffer > Network Support Engineer > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota/NorthernLights GigaPOP > > +1 612 626-7884 <tel:%2B1%20612%20626-7884> (desk) > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- Tim Peiffer Network Support Engineer Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota/NorthernLights GigaPOP +1 612 626-7884 (desk)

June 4, 2015

Re: Route Server stability

by Tim Peiffer

On 6/4/15 11:44 AM, Doug McIntyre wrote: > On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 11:39:34AM -0500, Tim Peiffer wrote: >> The route reflectors have been bouncing a few times in the last 2 days. The >> connections had been pretty stable since the route reflectors were swapped >> out back at the end of March. >> >> 206.108.255.5/AS21709.micemn.net > > Hmm, anybody else seeing anything? The RR's are up and stable as far > as I can see. > > There were a couple Hold timer expired logs for 46692 & 53480 in the > last few days, but otherwise the machines and processes have been up 61 days. > > My own sessions to them are stable. > > 206.108.255.1 53679 205718 189672 0 81 8w5d17h Establ > inet.0: 730/1247/1246/1 > 206.108.255.2 53679 210505 189734 0 55 8w5d18h Establ > inet.0: 516/1243/1242/1 > > > Just you? Maybe, but only the one peer is bouncing. 206.108.255.5 4 21709 362 399 9741655 0 0 00:56:29 5 Jun 4 10:57:20: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 206.108.255.5 4/0 (hold time expired) 0 bytes Jun 4 10:57:20: %BGP-5-NBR_RESET: Neighbor 206.108.255.5 reset (BGP Notification sent) Jun 4 10:57:20: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 206.108.255.5 Down BGP Notification sent Jun 4 10:57:20: %BGP_SESSION-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 206.108.255.5 IPv4 Unicast topology base removed from session BGP Notification sent Jun 4 11:00:41: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: neighbor 206.108.255.5 Up -- Tim Peiffer Network Support Engineer Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota/NorthernLights GigaPOP +1 612 626-7884 (desk)

June 4, 2015

Re: Route Server stability

by Matthew Beckwell

Tim, The IP/AS you referenced belongs to Implex...is that the peer you're seeing drop? ~Matthew On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Tim Peiffer <peiffer(a)umn.edu> wrote: > The route reflectors have been bouncing a few times in the last 2 days. > The connections had been pretty stable since the route reflectors were > swapped out back at the end of March. > > 206.108.255.5/AS21709.micemn.net > > > -- > Tim Peiffer > Network Support Engineer > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota/NorthernLights GigaPOP > > +1 612 626-7884 (desk) >

June 4, 2015

Re: Route Server stability

by Jeremy Lumby

I am not 511Edge03#sh ip bgp sum Neighbor V AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down State/PfxRcd 206.108.255.1 4 53679 812622 665499 177907355 0 0 8w5d 1254 206.108.255.2 4 53679 832237 673183 177907352 0 0 8w5d 1250 -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:44 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Route Server stability On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 11:39:34AM -0500, Tim Peiffer wrote: > The route reflectors have been bouncing a few times in the last 2 > days. The connections had been pretty stable since the route > reflectors were swapped out back at the end of March. > > 206.108.255.5/AS21709.micemn.net Hmm, anybody else seeing anything? The RR's are up and stable as far as I can see. There were a couple Hold timer expired logs for 46692 & 53480 in the last few days, but otherwise the machines and processes have been up 61 days. My own sessions to them are stable. 206.108.255.1 53679 205718 189672 0 81 8w5d17h Establ inet.0: 730/1247/1246/1 206.108.255.2 53679 210505 189734 0 55 8w5d18h Establ inet.0: 516/1243/1242/1 Just you? -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

June 4, 2015

Re: Route Server stability

by Justin Krejci

Both v4 and v6 sessions to both RR have been looking stable for us as well, 8w5d session uptime for all of them. No anomolous traffic changes to/from the RR's as observed by Cacti over the last two days. ________________________________________ From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Doug McIntyre [merlyn(a)IPHOUSE.NET] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 11:44 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Route Server stability On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 11:39:34AM -0500, Tim Peiffer wrote: > The route reflectors have been bouncing a few times in the last 2 days. The > connections had been pretty stable since the route reflectors were swapped > out back at the end of March. > > 206.108.255.5/AS21709.micemn.net Hmm, anybody else seeing anything? The RR's are up and stable as far as I can see. There were a couple Hold timer expired logs for 46692 & 53480 in the last few days, but otherwise the machines and processes have been up 61 days. My own sessions to them are stable. 206.108.255.1 53679 205718 189672 0 81 8w5d17h Establ inet.0: 730/1247/1246/1 206.108.255.2 53679 210505 189734 0 55 8w5d18h Establ inet.0: 516/1243/1242/1 Just you? -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

June 4, 2015

Re: Route Server stability

by Doug McIntyre

On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 11:39:34AM -0500, Tim Peiffer wrote: > The route reflectors have been bouncing a few times in the last 2 days. The > connections had been pretty stable since the route reflectors were swapped > out back at the end of March. > > 206.108.255.5/AS21709.micemn.net Hmm, anybody else seeing anything? The RR's are up and stable as far as I can see. There were a couple Hold timer expired logs for 46692 & 53480 in the last few days, but otherwise the machines and processes have been up 61 days. My own sessions to them are stable. 206.108.255.1 53679 205718 189672 0 81 8w5d17h Establ inet.0: 730/1247/1246/1 206.108.255.2 53679 210505 189734 0 55 8w5d18h Establ inet.0: 516/1243/1242/1 Just you? -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

June 4, 2015

Route Server stability

by Tim Peiffer

The route reflectors have been bouncing a few times in the last 2 days. The connections had been pretty stable since the route reflectors were swapped out back at the end of March. 206.108.255.5/AS21709.micemn.net -- Tim Peiffer Network Support Engineer Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota/NorthernLights GigaPOP +1 612 626-7884 (desk)

June 4, 2015

Non-Profit Status

by Jason Hanke

Where are we at with the non-profit conversion? Does the Board need help? -- 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

June 4, 2015