- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: ASN Traffic Analysis/Tracking/Graphing Tool(s)?

by Mike Horwath

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:09:06AM -0500, Mike Bushard, Jr wrote: > I have been looking for something like this also, but haven't had > much luck. Pick up flow data, push into database, select by AS or select by network, etc. Gonna require some hardware to make it work, especially if you wish to store any type of historical data and you want reasonable response time. And probably gonna require a unanimous opt-in for it to work and there will also be the issue of the bilateral peers to be resolved. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau(a)iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkeley Fortune ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 11, 2012

Re: ASN Traffic Analysis/Tracking/Graphing Tool(s)?

by Mike Horwath

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:00:52AM -0500, Russell Berg wrote: > The graphs and weathermap tools for MICE are great... does anyone > have a good AS traffic analysis tool that could be > recommended/added? > > I think the University of Wisconsin may have rolled their own, check out: > > http://stats.net.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/AsQuery.fcgi?as_number=57&fetch_ .. So there must be some flow reporting going as well I assume. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau(a)iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkeley Fortune ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 11, 2012

Re: ASN Traffic Analysis/Tracking/Graphing Tool(s)?

by Mike Bushard, Jr

I have been looking for something like this also, but haven't had much luck. Mike Bushard, Jr | Network Engineer IV | Arvig -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Russell Berg Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:01 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] ASN Traffic Analysis/Tracking/Graphing Tool(s)? The graphs and weathermap tools for MICE are great... does anyone have a good AS traffic analysis tool that could be recommended/added? I think the University of Wisconsin may have rolled their own, check out: http://stats.net.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/AsQuery.fcgi?as_number=57&fetch_date=201 2-10-11&top_n=10&RIR=ALL&total_stats=true&v6_stats=true&out=true&path=true &out_max=true&GO=GO&.cgifields=out&.cgifields=origin&.cgifields=out_max&.c gifields=path&.cgifields=in_max&.cgifields=total_stats&.cgifields=in&.cgif ields=v6_stats&.cgifields=v4_stats using UMN's AS (57) as an example. Searches for an open source tool called AsQuery were unsuccessful. Thanks, Russell Berg WIN/Airstream Communications www.wins.net ######################################################################## 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

Oct. 11, 2012

Re: ASN Traffic Analysis/Tracking/Graphing Tool(s)?

by David Farmer

AS 217 might be more interesting that is the AS that our campus traffic is origined out of, AS 57 is mostly a transit AS. If your interested I can poke at the Wisconsin guys to talk about what they are doing. On 10/11/12 10:00 CDT, Russell Berg wrote: > The graphs and weathermap tools for MICE are great... does anyone have a good AS traffic analysis tool that could be recommended/added? > > I think the University of Wisconsin may have rolled their own, check out: > > http://stats.net.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/AsQuery.fcgi?as_number=57&fetch_date=2012… > > using UMN's AS (57) as an example. Searches for an open source tool called AsQuery were unsuccessful. > > Thanks, > > Russell Berg > WIN/Airstream Communications > > www.wins.net > > ######################################################################## > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 11, 2012

ASN Traffic Analysis/Tracking/Graphing Tool(s)?

by Russell Berg

The graphs and weathermap tools for MICE are great... does anyone have a good AS traffic analysis tool that could be recommended/added? I think the University of Wisconsin may have rolled their own, check out: http://stats.net.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/AsQuery.fcgi?as_number=57&fetch_date=2012… using UMN's AS (57) as an example. Searches for an open source tool called AsQuery were unsuccessful. Thanks, Russell Berg WIN/Airstream Communications www.wins.net ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 11, 2012

Re: Dormant Ports

by Jay Hanke

> Likewise for Selloxx? Yes Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 11, 2012

Re: Netflix Open Connect

by Jay Hanke

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Does anyone know if it is still on track for Q1 2013? > I'll see the Netflix guys at NANOG and confirm. I don't think anything has changed. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 11, 2012

Re: Netflix Open Connect

by Jeremy Lumby

Does anyone know if it is still on track for Q1 2013? -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Eric Crist Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:01 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Netflix Open Connect IIRC, one of these is already in the works. --- Eric F Crist System Administrator ClaimLynx, Inc (952) 593-5969 x2301 On Oct 10, 2012, at 18:58:18, Darin Steffl <dcshobby(a)GMAIL.COM> wrote: > https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect > > Any chance one of these could be deployed and connected to the MICE exchange to keep traffic from going to Chicago? > > -- > Darin Steffl > > 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 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 11, 2012

Re: Netflix Open Connect

by Eric Crist

IIRC, one of these is already in the works. --- Eric F Crist System Administrator ClaimLynx, Inc (952) 593-5969 x2301 On Oct 10, 2012, at 18:58:18, Darin Steffl <dcshobby(a)GMAIL.COM> wrote: > https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect > > Any chance one of these could be deployed and connected to the MICE exchange to keep traffic from going to Chicago? > > -- > Darin Steffl > > 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

Oct. 11, 2012

Netflix Open Connect

by Darin Steffl

https://signup.netflix.com/openconnect Any chance one of these could be deployed and connected to the MICE exchange to keep traffic from going to Chicago? -- Darin Steffl ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 10, 2012

Re: Dormant Ports

by Richard Laager

On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 13:02 -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > The Integra, Zayo and Implex port have been dormant (down/down) for > quite some time. > > If you're part of these organizations please let us know if you plan > to connect and peer so we can clean up the records. Likewise for Selloxx? -- Richard ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 10, 2012

Re: Dormant Ports

by Radzwon, Tony

I Believe we are still waiting on an XFP+ -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jay Hanke Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 1:03 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Dormant Ports The Integra, Zayo and Implex port have been dormant (down/down) for quite some time. If you're part of these organizations please let us know if you plan to connect and peer so we can clean up the records. Thanks, Jay ######################################################################## 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

Oct. 10, 2012

Re: Books

by Mike Horwath

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 05:40:26PM +0000, Anthony Anderberg wrote: > I brought a couple topical books to the MICE UG7 meeting, including > a book called Tubes that mentions MICE. As the social hour started > to die down I went down to do some work in our racks and when I came > back the books were gone. All of the people were gone too so I > assume someone picked them up and has thus-far forgotten to ping me > regarding their current location. > > Ping away. I GOT THEM! In my backseat. I figured you didn't wanna lose them so snagged them when there were like 3 of us left in the room. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau(a)iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkeley Fortune ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 10, 2012

Re: Books

by Dean Bahls

Anthony, Richard Laager and I were the last ones to leave the room. I don't recall those books being there when we walked out. Dean From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Anthony Anderberg Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:40 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Books I brought a couple topical books to the MICE UG7 meeting, including a book called Tubes that mentions MICE. As the social hour started to die down I went down to do some work in our racks and when I came back the books were gone. All of the people were gone too so I assume someone picked them up and has thus-far forgotten to ping me regarding their current location. Ping away. Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst NUtel_email_logo_1 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net www.nutelecom.net _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2221 / Virus Database: 2441/5322 - Release Date: 10/10/12 _____ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1> &A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 10, 2012

Dormant Ports

by Jay Hanke

The Integra, Zayo and Implex port have been dormant (down/down) for quite some time. If you're part of these organizations please let us know if you plan to connect and peer so we can clean up the records. Thanks, Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 10, 2012

Books

by Anthony Anderberg

I brought a couple topical books to the MICE UG7 meeting, including a book called Tubes that mentions MICE. As the social hour started to die down I went down to do some work in our racks and when I came back the books were gone. All of the people were gone too so I assume someone picked them up and has thus-far forgotten to ping me regarding their current location. Ping away. Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst [NUtel_email_logo_1] 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net<mailto:anthonyanderberg@nu-telecom.net> www.nutelecom.net ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 10, 2012

Cologix Press Release - MICE IP Exchange

by Mike Hemphill

Good morning, FYI, please see attached Press Release that Cologix is sending out this morning announcing that we have renewed and extended our support for the Midwest Internet Cooperative Exchange <http://www.micemn.net/> (MICE). Thank you to all MICE members, Cologix appreciates our relationship with MICE & each MICE member! Best regards, Mike Mike Hemphill General Manager | *Cologix, Inc.** *511 11th Ave S, Suite 450 | Minneapolis, MN 55415 P: 612.333.1922 | M: 612.812.5242 mike.hemphill(a)cologix.com cologix.com ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 10, 2012

Re: Route Server

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 08:36:46AM -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > Can someone add the new IP addresses to the rviews router? Oh yeah, forgot about that one. Okay, the IPs are up. I'll get the new BGP sessions later today. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> -- ipHouse/Goldengate/Bitstream/ProNS -- Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 9, 2012

Route Server

by Jay Hanke

Can someone add the new IP addresses to the rviews router? -- Jay Hanke CTO, CCIE #19093 Mankato Networks LLC PO Box 54 619 S Front St Mankato, MN 56001-3838 Google 530-618-2398 jayhanke(a)mankatonetworks.net http://www.mankatonetworks.com ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 9, 2012

Re: MICE Cost Breakdowns

by Owen DeLong

On Oct 8, 2012, at 12:58 PM, Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson(a)ARVIG.COM> wrote: > Based on some of the discussion, in particular the base IP fee, I wanted to test one change. I shifted the Colo costs from the base member fee to the switch portion of the spreadsheet to see how that would impact the distribution. I've included this for your reference. I think it's fair to shift some of that burden, but perhaps move the base fee up slightly to help cover those costs as the resources would be in use either way. > > MICE Cost Breakdown, Oct 2012 - Revision 1.xlsx > > A couple of other thoughts came to mind as I was reading through these comments as well. > > First, for the meetings, should we consider moving them around a little? Perhaps one at 511, one in Central MN and one in Fargo for 3 a year (or something like that). How would this impact the attendance and cost? > > Second, there is a lot of talk about remote switches. Should MICE care about the remote switches and should MICE have control of those switches. It occurs to me that we are discussing a fee structure which provides for a base member fee (gets you the IP allocation, peering and vote) and a separate fee for actually connecting to the MICE fabric. Do we care how the member gets to the 511 building so long as it's an L2 connection from their border to the MICE core? In other words, I think this fee structure lends itself to other member companies providing transport and it's up to them what they want to charge for that transport. All MICE would really care about is the costs of maintaining the switch fabric for those members directly connected and the base fee to peer with MICE. In fact, this could arguably encourage member companies to provide transport, leaving MICE fee to focus on it's assets in the 511 building the future needs/goals we decide on as a group. Thoughts? > The current model greatly simplifies addressing any technical issues that come up with remote connections, so I would advocate sticking with it. A more laissez faire model could lead to extended outages and/or the need to play "isolate that problem" by segmenting the exchange, neither of which seems desirable to me. For examples of what I speak, see the various histories of early days of MAE East and West. Owen > s > > Shaun Carlson > Senior Network Engineer | Arvig > ph: (218) 346-8673 | contact: protocol.by/scarlson > em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)mankatonetworks.net> wrote: > > If we do that, I'd like to propose also that ports be limited to one > > MAC. Obviously, this wouldn't apply to ports between (any combination > > of) MICE Switches and Remote Switches. > > I played with port security for this and had pretty decent success. > > > > > The Amsterdam Internet exchange is using L2ACLs for this with great > > success. > > Using port security also had the benefit of not having to track each > carriers mac address. > > > Here'd be an example of what this would look like (with * marking ports > > limited to 1 MAC): > > > For now, we'd treat the CNS switch as a MICE Switch (since it's loaned > > to MICE), but if that changed, then it might be another example of a > > Remote Switch. > > Mankato Networks remote switch is managed by MICE. > > > CNS & Mankato Networks: Does the requirement to break each customer out > > into the Remote Switch kill your business model? > > Not really a problem, I started breaking them out anyway. I'd have a > couple of legacy users that would need to shuffle ports but not a big > deal. > > ######################################################################## > > 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 > ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 8, 2012

Re: MICE Cost Breakdowns

by Shaun Carlson

Based on some of the discussion, in particular the base IP fee, I wanted to test one change. I shifted the Colo costs from the base member fee to the switch portion of the spreadsheet to see how that would impact the distribution. I've included this for your reference. I think it's fair to shift some of that burden, but perhaps move the base fee up slightly to help cover those costs as the resources would be in use either way. MICE Cost Breakdown, Oct 2012 - Revision 1.xlsx <http://db.tt/g1h86bb8> A couple of other thoughts came to mind as I was reading through these comments as well. First, for the meetings, should we consider moving them around a little? Perhaps one at 511, one in Central MN and one in Fargo for 3 a year (or something like that). How would this impact the attendance and cost? Second, there is a lot of talk about remote switches. Should MICE care about the remote switches and should MICE have control of those switches. It occurs to me that we are discussing a fee structure which provides for a base member fee (gets you the IP allocation, peering and vote) and a separate fee for actually connecting to the MICE fabric. Do we care how the member gets to the 511 building so long as it's an L2 connection from their border to the MICE core? In other words, I think this fee structure lends itself to other member companies providing transport and it's up to them what they want to charge for that transport. All MICE would really care about is the costs of maintaining the switch fabric for those members directly connected and the base fee to peer with MICE. In fact, this could arguably encourage member companies to provide transport, leaving MICE fee to focus on it's assets in the 511 building the future needs/goals we decide on as a group. Thoughts? s *Shaun Carlson *Senior Network Engineer | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | contact: protocol.by/scarlson em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)mankatonetworks.net>wrote: > > If we do that, I'd like to propose also that ports be limited to one > > MAC. Obviously, this wouldn't apply to ports between (any combination > > of) MICE Switches and Remote Switches. > > I played with port security for this and had pretty decent success. > > > > > The Amsterdam Internet exchange is using L2ACLs for this with great > > success. > > Using port security also had the benefit of not having to track each > carriers mac address. > > > Here'd be an example of what this would look like (with * marking ports > > limited to 1 MAC): > > > For now, we'd treat the CNS switch as a MICE Switch (since it's loaned > > to MICE), but if that changed, then it might be another example of a > > Remote Switch. > > Mankato Networks remote switch is managed by MICE. > > > CNS & Mankato Networks: Does the requirement to break each customer out > > into the Remote Switch kill your business model? > > Not really a problem, I started breaking them out anyway. I'd have a > couple of legacy users that would need to shuffle ports but not a big > deal. > > ######################################################################## > > 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

Oct. 8, 2012

Re: ARIN in Minneapolis

by Hannigan, Martin

I’ll be there as well. Best, -M< On 9/11/12 9:32 AM, "Reid Fishler" <rfishler(a)HE.NET> wrote: I am Reid. :-P Sorry, I had to. Reid On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Brian Mort <brian.mort(a)arvig.com> wrote: I am Jay. On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Jay Hanke <jayhanke(a)mankatonetworks.net> wrote: Is anyone else going to the ARIN meeting on Thursday in Minneapolis? -- Jay Hanke CTO, CCIE #19093 Mankato Networks LLC PO Box 54 619 S Front St Mankato, MN 56001-3838 Google 530-618-2398 <tel:530-618-2398> jayhanke(a)mankatonetworks.net http://www.mankatonetworks.com ######################################################################## 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

Oct. 8, 2012

Re: MICE Cost Breakdowns

by Jay Hanke

> If we do that, I'd like to propose also that ports be limited to one > MAC. Obviously, this wouldn't apply to ports between (any combination > of) MICE Switches and Remote Switches. I played with port security for this and had pretty decent success. > > The Amsterdam Internet exchange is using L2ACLs for this with great > success. Using port security also had the benefit of not having to track each carriers mac address. > Here'd be an example of what this would look like (with * marking ports > limited to 1 MAC): > For now, we'd treat the CNS switch as a MICE Switch (since it's loaned > to MICE), but if that changed, then it might be another example of a > Remote Switch. Mankato Networks remote switch is managed by MICE. > CNS & Mankato Networks: Does the requirement to break each customer out > into the Remote Switch kill your business model? Not really a problem, I started breaking them out anyway. I'd have a couple of legacy users that would need to shuffle ports but not a big deal. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 8, 2012

Re: MICE Cost Breakdowns

by Richard Laager

On Sat, 2012-10-06 at 11:15 -0500, Jay Hanke wrote: > Remote Switches > > I'd further propose that remote switch operators pay their port fee > but not an IP fee unless they are peering as well. Anyone who pays any > fee is a member and has voting rights. Which is a change from our > current requirement of having 1 BGP session. Any AS connected to a > remote switch pays the IP Fee and the port costs are between them and > the remote switch "owner". > > Remote Switch owners must provide superuser rights to MICE for their > switches to provide common administration. I'd also argue the > equipment switching must be dedicated. Remote switch operators are > responsible for all the costs associated with running their remote > switches. Addition of future switches requires Board of Governors > approval, and likely some written agreement in the future. > > Remote Switches applies to attaching a L2 fabric to the network not > transporting single connections. If we do that, I'd like to propose also that ports be limited to one MAC. Obviously, this wouldn't apply to ports between (any combination of) MICE Switches and Remote Switches. The Amsterdam Internet exchange is using L2ACLs for this with great success. Here'd be an example of what this would look like (with * marking ports limited to 1 MAC): +-------------+ | MICE Switch |--- 1G * ipHouse +-------------+ |Stacking | | Link +----- 1G * TDS | +-------------+ | MICE Switch |--- 10G * UMN +-------------+ |10G | | +--------- 10G * Akamai | +--------------------+ | Mankato Networks | | MICE Remote Switch | +--------------------+ <-------- MICE's authority ends here |1G |1G |1G |* |* |* +--------------------+ | BBV Wiktel Vaultas | | | | Mankato Networks | | non-MICE Switch | +--------------------+ For now, we'd treat the CNS switch as a MICE Switch (since it's loaned to MICE), but if that changed, then it might be another example of a Remote Switch. CNS & Mankato Networks: Does the requirement to break each customer out into the Remote Switch kill your business model? -- Richard ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 8, 2012

Re: MICE Cost Breakdowns

by Jay Hanke

> In light of this requirement, do we want to spell out that among the > BoG approval criteria is the use of a model/brand of switch compatible > with the knowledge/training of the current fabric administrators? I don't think we need to go to that level of detail. I think requiring a plan as to how the switch will be connected and maintained and how issues are resolved would be sufficient. > Have we documented the criteria for this BoG approval at all? No, I just brought it up because the proposed pricing model distinguishes between MICE ports for fees. I'd love it if someone would take a stab at such a policy. > Is that something we want to do, or just leave it as an assumption that > all parties will work in good faith to do "the right thing" in this > regard? I think the connection and maintenance plan would suffice. > I would clarify the definition as: > A remote switch is any piece of active hardware not owned by MICE which > connects more than one member to the MICE core infrastructure. > Agreed > I would suggest: > All costs and contracts required for remote switches to reach and > connect to the MICE core infrastructure shall be the responsibility > of the remote switch operator. Agreed > >> Grace Period >> >> I'd advocate offering a six month grace for new members on either 1G >> or 10G ports for new participants. >> > I think a 3 month grace period is probably a more reasonable compromise. > I think MICE is well enough established and presents a good enough > value proposition to be attractive to new members as is. I don't know > of any other (paid) IX offering 3 months free service, let alone 6. MICE is just cheaper, faster and better than any of the other paid exchanges you've come across. ;) > >> Small Networks >> > I haven't had a chance to look over the spreadsheet yet, but if $500/year > is the IP fee, that seems rather steep to me. To the best of my knowledge, > an IX is treated as an end-user organization and not a subscriber member > in terms of ARIN fees. That means we should have paid about $2,250 for > our initial IPv6 and IPv4 assignments combined and $500 for our ASN as > a one-time fee, but should be paying $100/year thereafter. We should > never need more IPv6 (a /48 is realistically enough to run several > thousand of the worlds largest exchange points) and I suggest we treat > the cost of additional IPv4 space ($1,250 or $MARKET, depending on > timing) as a problem to solve when we have more than 200 attachments > to the exchange (I think that's a ways off and the cost of IPv4 by then is > unpredictable at best, if it can be obtained at all.) Who cares about v4 anyway? We'll just force them to tunnel their IPv4 over v6. ;) > >> Expansion beyond 511 > Agreed. Any seeding should probably be done by forming a separate > organization and having MICE make an agreed upon (by vote of the members) > contribution to said organization. Exactly > >> Promotion >> > Factual questions (the answers to which might shape members thoughts > on the opinion questions): > How frequent are the UG meetings? 2 per year > What is typical attendance? 20-45 > What level of facilities/etc. is required to hold a UG meeting? > + Banquet room of a restaurant > + Small Conference Room (essentially like a board room) > + Large Conference Room (hotel ballroom in conference configuration) > + Other? (please specify) A good sized banquet room is sufficient. Although missing wifi the last place worked pretty well. > Other than space, what logistics/facilities are required? Food/Drink/Speaker/Connectivity Promotion wise, I was also thinking about sending representatives to other non-MICE events to speak. Mainly for events that we can't cover during our respective day jobs. -- Jay Hanke CTO, CCIE #19093 Mankato Networks LLC PO Box 54 619 S Front St Mankato, MN 56001-3838 Google 530-618-2398 jayhanke(a)mankatonetworks.net http://www.mankatonetworks.com ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Oct. 6, 2012