- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Please welcome AcenTek (MI) to MICE!
by Jeremy Lumby July 22, 2022

July 22, 2022

Name: AcenTek (Michigan) Switch: Fiber Minnesota Ports: Hu1/0/3/3 (10G Breakout) ASN: 11904 IPv4: 206.108.255.199/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:2E80::1/64 Peering Contact: peering(a)acentek.net Route Servers: YES BFD: NO Welcome Aboard! Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S #216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 Direct: 612-392-6814 Fax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

2 1

US Internet (AS 10242) - Router Maintenance
by Justin Krejci July 22, 2022

July 22, 2022

US Internet will be dropping IX BGP sessions to complete a router reboot for software updates. BGP sessions will be re-established after reboot is completed. The maintenance window of time for this starts this evening 11pm central time. US Internet at MICE ASN: 10242 206.108.255.19 2001:504:27::2802:0:1 Justin Krejci Network Engineer 952.253.3200 12450 Wayzata Blvd. Suite 320 | Minnetonka, MN 55305 [1616694896307]

1 0

Customer reports on Netflix issues
by Frank Bulk July 21, 2022

July 21, 2022

Last night and into this morning we've received several customer reports about being unable to watch Netflix video. Our own Netflix cache shows some kind of event Wednesday at ~4:20 pm U.S. Central where IPv6 traffic to it dropped to zero and there was a huge drop in IPv4 traffic. Currently traffic volume this morning is just under half of normal. Interestingly enough, MICE's own two port channels to Netflix (image attached) are showing ~57% of yesterday's volume at this time (29.3 Gbps rather than 51.15 Gbps). I opened a ticket with Netflix through the Netflix cache administration portal, but wondering if anyone is receiving similar reports from customers or is aware of anything else? Regards, Frank Bulk FiberNet Communications

1 1

4/18/2022 and 5/24/2022 Board Meetings
by AnthonyAnderberg＠nuvera.net July 19, 2022

July 19, 2022

As promised here are my notes from the last two MICE board meetings, combined since the topics were the same for both. 4/18/2022 and 5/24/2022 MICE Board Meetings Conducted via Phone Bridges, Directors in Attendance: Richard Laager, Anthony Anderberg, Reid Fishler Capital Credits and other Co-op Items We are a 501.c12 entity instead of the more typical 501.c6 so several members accrued capital credits for 2012-2016 because of their contributions. We're under no obligation to pay them. When determining how to handle the retroactive 501c12 years, Richard and Kayla previously combined 2012-2016 as if they were one year for capital credit purposes. The accountants disagreed with that approach. They said we have to recalculate it year-by-year, with different treatment of the years with losses. The accountants would prefer a large correction in the 2021 books instead of re-opening 2012-2020 books. Richard proposed that we pay out capital credits for all of the years prior to 2017 to close those years out completely. The year 2017 was when we started collecting port fees. More recent donations and donations going forward are accounted as good will, and the board discussed that we would probably be better off re-opening the books for the years 2012-2016 and reclassifying donations in those years as good-will also. This would be extra work for the accountants but would solve the capital credit pay-out issue - additionally it was felt that paying out capital credits would harm our case should we ever need to go back to the IRS in an effort to be reclassified as a 501.c3 organization. The board also talked about the possibility of needing to notify members each year of their capital credit status/amount. We also discussed the best way to pay out capital credits, either as separate checks or as credits on annual bills. After some discussion it was felt that the benefit of less-paperwork was off-set by the effort required to explain variable annual bills, additionally 1099 statements would likely be required in either case. Research on all of the above continues. Epik / IP Volume Non-Pay Disconnect The board decided to expel Epik as a member for 1) non-payment, and 2) failure to ever provide updated corporate information for their IP Volume entity. They were given notice as required by the bylaws, that notice period has now expired, and they have been disconnected. KC Remote Switch Proposal The board discussed the proposal for a remote switch in Kansas City, with most of the specific pros and cons also being discussed and well documented on the MICE-DISCUSS list. It was agreed that this is an evolving topic that will need more discussion and thought by the community as a whole. After the inclusion of expected members the revised proposal was approved with directors Anderberg and Fishler voting yes and director Laager voting no. The board also discussed several other items that will be made public at a later date. Respectfully Submitted, Anthony Anderberg MICE Treasurer/Secretary

1 0

Last day for free MWPS 2022 registration
by Jay Hanke July 15, 2022

July 15, 2022

Today is the last day of free attendee registration for the Midwest Peering Summit. After today, the registration will be $40 per person either in advance or at the door. We currently have over 160 registered attendees making it the largest MICE meeting ever! Our room block at the hotel has sold out but there are a handful of rooms left at the hotel. We have a good mix of CDN, Eyeball, Vendors, R&E and IX operators attending. https://www.eventcreate.com/e/mwps2022 Special thanks to our sponsors! 1623 Farnam Arista Aureon616 Bluebird Datacenters NocIX South Front Networks -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

2 1

Please welcome hkgo LLC to MICE!
by Jeremy Lumby July 1, 2022

July 1, 2022

Name: hkgo LLC Switch: MN VoIP Port: E 35 ASN: 945 IPv4: 206.108.255.197/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:3B1::1/64 Peering Contact: peering(a)august.tw Route Servers: YES BFD: YES Welcome Aboard! Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S #216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 Direct: 612-392-6814 Fax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

2 1

Please welcome ANSIBLE Networks to MICE!
by Jeremy Lumby June 22, 2022

June 22, 2022

Name: ANSIBLE Networks Switch: MN VoIP Port: E 14 ASN: 14570 IPv4: 206.108.255.196/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:38EA::1/64 Peering Contact: peering(a)ansible.org Route Servers: YES BFD: NO Welcome Aboard! Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S #216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 Direct: 612-392-6814 Fax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

2 1

LibertyCommunications Port Move
by Jay Hanke June 1, 2022

June 1, 2022

Liberty Communications has moved to port 7/1 on the SFN100G remote. This is the last member connection on the SFN 10G remote switch. The 10G switch can be removed from monitoring -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

1 0

ClaimLynx disconnecting from MICE
by Thomas Johnson May 25, 2022

May 25, 2022

Effective tomorrow (5/25/22) afternoon at 15:00CT, ClaimLynx will be disconnecting from MICE. Thank you for all of the prefixes, and the effort that has gone into making such a great exchange. Best, Thomas Johnson ClaimLynx, Inc. -- This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient or the individual responsible for delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, please be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please return it to the sender immediately and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. If you have any questions concerning this message, please contact the sender or call ClaimLynx at (952) 593-5969.

1 0

Please welcome Flexnetworks to MICE!
by Jeremy Lumby May 24, 2022

May 24, 2022

Name: Flexnetworks Switch: MICE Core Port: E 4/23 ASN: 19523 IPv4: 206.108.255.194/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:4C43::1/64 Peering Contact: support(a)flexnetworks.ca Route Servers: YES BFD: NO Welcome Aboard! Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S #216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 Direct: 612-392-6814 Fax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

2 1

Re: Apple peering down
by AnthonyAnderberg＠nuvera.net May 23, 2022

May 23, 2022

Looks like MICE’s LAG Po30 to Apple went down at the same time - about 3:15am this morning. From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)MYPREMIERONLINE.COM> Reply-To: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Date: Friday, May 20, 2022 at 8:48 AM To: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Apple peering down Anyone else seeing Apple peer down over IPv4 and IPv6 since 3:18 am? May 20 03:18:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 2001:504:27::2ca:0:1 (AS714-1.micemn.net) (AS 714 APPLE-ENGINEERING, US) 4/0 (Hold Timer Expired Error/Unspecified) 0 bytes May 20 03:18:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 2001:504:27::2ca:0:1 (AS714-1.micemn.net) (AS 714 APPLE-ENGINEERING, US) old state Established event HoldTime new state Idle May 20 03:18:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 206.108.255.146 (AS714-1.micemn.net) (AS 714 APPLE-ENGINEERING, US) 4/0 (Hold Timer Expired Error/Unspecified) 0 bytes May 20 03:18:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 206.108.255.146 (AS714-1.micemn.net) (AS 714 APPLE-ENGINEERING, US) old state Established event HoldTime new state Idle Fran k ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

4 7

Please welcome Communications 1 Network to MICE!
by Jeremy Lumby May 20, 2022

May 20, 2022

Name: Communications 1 Network Switch: SouthFront Albert Lea Port: E 7/4 ASN: 394911 IPv4: 206.108.255.195/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:6:69F::1/64 Peering Contact: jkeiper(a)comm1net.net Route Servers: YES BFD: YES Welcome Aboard! Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S #216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 Direct: 612-392-6814 Fax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

3 2

Apple peering down
by Frank Bulk May 20, 2022

May 20, 2022

Anyone else seeing Apple peer down over IPv4 and IPv6 since 3:18 am? May 20 03:18:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 2001:504:27::2ca:0:1 (AS714-1.micemn.net) (AS 714 APPLE-ENGINEERING, US) 4/0 (Hold Timer Expired Error/Unspecified) 0 bytes May 20 03:18:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 2001:504:27::2ca:0:1 (AS714-1.micemn.net) (AS 714 APPLE-ENGINEERING, US) old state Established event HoldTime new state Idle May 20 03:18:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 206.108.255.146 (AS714-1.micemn.net) (AS 714 APPLE-ENGINEERING, US) 4/0 (Hold Timer Expired Error/Unspecified) 0 bytes May 20 03:18:10 207.32.15.14 (sxct-north-2.sxcy.fbnt.netins.net) SiouxCity-Fibernet-Arista Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 206.108.255.146 (AS714-1.micemn.net) (AS 714 APPLE-ENGINEERING, US) old state Established event HoldTime new state Idle Fran k

2 1

Please welcome Bluepeak to MICE!
by Jeremy Lumby May 11, 2022

May 11, 2022

Name: Bluepeak Switch: MICE Core Port: E6/23/1 ASN: 20412 IPv4: This is a port upgrade and name change from Vast Broadband, all IP info remains the same. The new connection will be 100G IPv6: Peering Contact: neteng(a)mybluepeak.com Route Servers: Yes BFD: Yes Welcome Aboard Again! Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S #216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 Direct: 612-392-6814 Fax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

1 0

Midwest Peering Summit 2022 Update
by Jay Hanke May 9, 2022

May 9, 2022

As of last night, we have 80 attendees registered for the summer event. The event is free of charge to peering networks (or potentially peering networks). Pre Registration is required. You can register here: https://www.eventcreate.com/e/mwps2022 This is our discounted room block: https://reservations.travelclick.com/109230?groupID=3466891 We ask if your company is bringing sales folks that you purchase a table ($200) to help with costs. MWPS 2022 Sponsors/Exhibitors ------------------------------------ 1623 Farnam Arista Aureon 616 Bluebird Networks NocIX South Front Networks MWPS 2022 Exhibitors ------------------------------------ Aurora Fiber Optic Networks Great Plains Communications Heartland Technology Data Center Hurricane Electric Precision Group US Internet Vantage Point Solutions IX Attendees ------------------------------------ ChIX (Chicago IL) DesMoinesIX (Des Moines IA) Fiber Data Internet Exchange (Altoona, Indy, STL) KCIX (Kansas City MO) MICE (Minneapolis MN) OhioIX (Columbus OH) OmahaIX (Omaha NE) QCIX (Davenport) SiouxIX (Sioux City IA) SpringIX (Springfield MO) STLIX (St Louis MO) Attending Companies ------------------------------------ Amazon Prime Video ConnectDSM Fiber Minnesota FiberComm Involta Iowa Communication Network Google Fiber Key Cooperative Liberty Communications Mankato Networks Midco MTC Technologies MTC Communications (not the same) Ninja-IX Nuvera Optk OzarksGo RLM Underground SDN Communications Smartsource Consulting South Slope Cooperative Communications Stream Data Centers SupraNet Communications Unite Private Networks Vaultas WIN Winnebago Cooperative Telecom Association -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

1 0

MICE Remote Switch Policy
by Richard Laager May 6, 2022

May 6, 2022

I've had some discussions with the board as well as with Jay and Jeremy on these topics. The board consensus was to bring this (in general) to the membership for more input. As to the specifics, while I know others agree with at least parts of this, I'm only speaking for myself here. I'll let everyone articulate their own positions. (This disclaimer should not be read as me signaling the existance of disagreement either. I just don't want to put words in other people's mouths.) Our current policy on remote switches is here: https://micemn.net/technical.html#remotes It has the proposal presented to the membership for discussion, then the board makes a final decision. Is this decision ministerial or discretionary? That is, if the remote switch proposal checks all the boxes in our policy, is MICE "required" (supposed to) always grant it, or is the board supposed to apply some discretion? If the decision is ministerial, then why bother bringing this to the board (or for that matter, the members) all? Couldn't we save a bunch of time and hassle and simply have management (in some form, whether that's me, Jay, and/or Jeremy) approve it? If the decision is discretionary, are there particular criteria that the board should consider (above and beyond the listed criteria)? One criteria used in a discussion I had (and I can't recall which of us said it first) is "MICE's strategic interests". What would that phrase mean to you; what are some strategic interests of MICE? For a bit of an absurd example for the thought experiment, imagine that someone was proposing a MICE remote switch, but we knew their goal was to attract a bunch of members and then convert that into a competing exchange. Is that something we would have to agree to simply because they met all the objective criteria? When we were new and little, MICE certainly had an interest in making every decision in a way that would maximize additional peering. However, at this point, the calculus may be (I'd argue is) different. We are moving a lot of traffic and are important to our members / in our region. We have to be careful that our decisions do not destabilize the exchange--in multiple ways: technical, financial, or political. Either way, should we expand the list of objective criteria in the policy? Some examples: * We have previously discussed dedicated vs non-dedicated switches. As time goes along, I am more convinced than ever that MICE remote switches should be required to be dedicated. Non-dedicated switches present extra complications for configuration and troubleshooting. (Jeremy has some additional insight on this that he will share.) I think we should make it a requirement that the switch be dedicated. (Perhaps the board could still grant an exception in exceptional cases.) * Should we require that a remote switch have X number of participants committed? And if so, what is X? In my view, it hardly makes sense to have a remote switch one or two participants. They could just as well backhaul to MICE directly. The criteria for allowing new remote switches vs disconnecting existing remotes need not be the same. If we set a minimum of e.g. 5 participants, we don't necessarily need to disconnect existing remotes that don't meet that. And I think the consensus is that we would not, barring them creating some significant problem. How do we feel about far-away remote switches? (This is a live issue in the context of the proposed Kansas City remote.) Some concerns: * At Wiktel, I peer with MN VoIP's far away extensions in Minneapolis. For example, I peer at SeattleIX (SIX) in Minneapolis. This has caused me some issues. For example, latency-sensitive gaming traffic was tromboning Wiktel-Minneapolis-Seattle-Chicago-Seattle-Minneapolis-Wiktel rather than Wiktel-Chicago-Wiktel. * Is it safe to have a broadcast domain that stretches across multiple states (or half a continent, in the SIX case)? * If we take this to its logical extreme... Imagine we had a MICE extension in every datacenter in the U.S. I think that is pretty obviously untenable for a bunch of reasons. Something close to that is actually within the realm of possibility, with some of these virtual extension things that people are doing. (Reid would be able to cite who.) Granted, nobody is proposing that today, but where should we draw the line? * Far-away extensions may reduce the incentive for CDNs to install locally. Some counterpoints: * Nobody is forcing networks to use the far-away remotes. * If people choose to use them, they take their routing into their own hands. They need to understand the tromboning risk and set their own routing policy. o Counter-counterpoint: Do they? Especially smaller / less experienced networks? Have we adequately warned them? o Counter-counterpoint: The existence of these far-away peers doesn't affect just them. It also affects the other networks with which they peer. Everyone on the exchange needs to be aware of the existence of far-away participants and handle their routing policy accordingly. If there are enough far-away peers, this might tip networks into an opt-in route server policy, or even to only do bilaterals. This will disadvantage small participants. * Networks can backhaul into far-away exchanges directly. o Counter-counterpoint: But a remote switch makes this cheaper / more feasible / more common, which is literally the point of creating such a remote switch. * For a local eyeball network in Des Moines, neither MICE nor Kansas City are far-away from me. Even MICE via Kansas City is not likely to be problematic. This might be the only economically feasible way they could peer with Minneapolis content. -- Richard

8 23

MICE Node for AS112
by David Farmer May 5, 2022

May 5, 2022

I'm seeing IPv6 routes from the MICE Node for AS112, but not IPv4 routes This is what the MICE Looking Glass sees; micemn-lg>sh bgp regexp _112_ BGP table version is 103138859, local router ID is 206.108.255.250 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale, m multipath, b backup-path, f RT-Filter, x best-external, a additional-path, c RIB-compressed, Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete RPKI validation codes: V valid, I invalid, N Not found Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path * 192.31.196.0 206.108.255.52 255 0 6939 112 i *> 206.108.255.52 255 0 6939 112 i * 192.175.48.0 206.108.255.52 255 0 6939 112 i *> 206.108.255.52 255 0 6939 112 i micemn-lg>sh bgp ipv6 uni regexp _112_ BGP table version is 165890313, local router ID is 206.108.255.250 Status codes: s suppressed, d damped, h history, * valid, > best, i - internal, r RIB-failure, S Stale, m multipath, b backup-path, f RT-Filter, x best-external, a additional-path, c RIB-compressed, Origin codes: i - IGP, e - EGP, ? - incomplete RPKI validation codes: V valid, I invalid, N Not found Network Next Hop Metric LocPrf Weight Path *> 2001:4:112::/48 2001:504:27::70:0:1 0 112 i * 2001:504:27::70:0:1 0 112 i *> 2620:4F:8000::/48 2001:504:27::70:0:1 0 112 i * 2001:504:27::70:0:1 0 112 i micemn-lg> -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================

2 2

Please welcome LTD Broadband. to MICE!
by Jeremy Lumby May 3, 2022

May 3, 2022

Name: LTD Broadband Switch: South Front Networks Albert Lea Port: E9/1 ASN: 394330 IPv4: This is a port upgrade/move, all IP info remains the same. The new connection will be 100G IPv6: Peering Contact: coreyhauer(a)ltdbroadband.com Route Servers: No BFD: No Welcome Aboard Again! Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S #216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 Direct: 612-392-6814 Fax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

1 0

IPv4 BGP session to Google down
by Frank Bulk April 19, 2022

April 19, 2022

Our BGP session bounce several times last might between 10:00 and 10:07 pm Central, and then has been down from 10:21 am. Anyone else seeing this? I see a little drop in the graph (http://micelg.usinternet.com/cacti/graph_view.php?action=tree&tree_id=1&lea…) this morning. Frank Bulk FiberNet (AS18883) Apr 7 10:21:55 207.32.15.14 Rib: %BGP-3-NOTIFICATION: sent to neighbor 206.108.255.167 (AS 15169) 4/0 (Hold Timer Expired Error/Unspecified) 0 bytes Apr 7 10:21:55 207.32.15.14 Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 206.108.255.167 (AS 15169) old state Established event HoldTime new state Idle Apr 7 10:22:00 207.32.15.14 Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 206.108.255.167 (AS 15169) old state OpenConfirm event RecvKeepAlive new state Established Apr 7 10:22:30 207.32.15.14 Rib: %BGP-5-ADJCHANGE: peer 206.108.255.167 (AS 15169) old state Established event HoldTime new state Idle

5 8

Please welcome Nsight Telservices to MICE!
by Jeremy Lumby April 18, 2022

April 18, 2022

Name: Nsight Telservices Switch: MICE Core Port: E 6/22/1 ASN: 3663 IPv4: 206.108.255.192/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:E4F::1/64 Peering Contact: network-routing(a)nsight.com Route Servers: YES BFD: YES Welcome Aboard! Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S #216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 Direct: 612-392-6814 Fax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

2 1

OT: NANOG call for presentations
by steve ulrich April 5, 2022

April 5, 2022

folks - long time lurker here. ( as well as a couple of times meatspace meeting attendee. ) apologies in advance for the off-topic email, but i'm on the NANOG program committee and we've had folks express interest in presentations regarding regional peering exchanges as well as talks regarding independent networks that have done interesting things from an operational perspective. e.g.: managing growth, novel deployment of access technologies. etc. it struck me that the folks peering at MICE or engaged in MICE operations might have great presentation ideas/material.. the next NANOG is in june in montreal, ca. but we're always looking for presentations for future NANOGs as well. NANOG has a variety of different presentation formats and we're open to suggestions. please feel free to submit an abstract online ( https://nanog.org/program/call-presentations/) and someone from the program committee thanks! -- steve ulrich (sulrich(a)botwerks.org)

1 0

Please welcome Long Lines Broadband to MICE!
by Jeremy Lumby April 4, 2022

April 4, 2022

Name: Long Lines Broadband Switch: MICE Main Port: E6/21/1 ASN: 32867 IPv4: This is a port upgrade, all IP info remains the same. The new connection will be 100G IPv6: Peering Contact: data(a)longlines.biz Route Servers: Yes BFD: No Welcome Aboard Again! Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S #216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 Direct: 612-392-6814 Fax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

1 0

ARIN NOAUTH
by Jay Hanke April 4, 2022

April 4, 2022

ARIN NOAUTH (legacy IRR) is getting shut down today at 11 AM central time. There will likely be some filtering issues across the internet for networks that haven't updated their IRR. https://www.arin.net/blog/2022/02/16/Take-Action-Now-to-Prepare-for-the-ARI… -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

1 0

MICE RS3 deactivated
by Jay Hanke March 31, 2022

March 31, 2022

MICE RS3 (test route server) has been powered down. Thanks! -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

1 0

Re: MICE Remote Switch Policy
by Dean Bahls March 24, 2022

March 24, 2022

I don’t think we can create enough check boxes to protect against all combinations and permutations that nefarious folks can dream up….that’s why we have a board. I think the board is elected to make sure the exchange is being run properly….and that’s how I vote. If the board wants feedback on any of the topics below, I’m sure all of us have opinions, and that would probably provide guidance needed for the board to make an official ruling. All within the realm of reasonableness. Keep up the good work! Dean From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>> On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2022 3:59 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Remote Switch Policy I've had some discussions with the board as well as with Jay and Jeremy on these topics. The board consensus was to bring this (in general) to the membership for more input. As to the specifics, while I know others agree with at least parts of this, I'm only speaking for myself here. I'll let everyone articulate their own positions. (This disclaimer should not be read as me signaling the existance of disagreement either. I just don't want to put words in other people's mouths.) Our current policy on remote switches is here: https://micemn.net/technical.html#remotes It has the proposal presented to the membership for discussion, then the board makes a final decision. Is this decision ministerial or discretionary? That is, if the remote switch proposal checks all the boxes in our policy, is MICE "required" (supposed to) always grant it, or is the board supposed to apply some discretion? If the decision is ministerial, then why bother bringing this to the board (or for that matter, the members) all? Couldn't we save a bunch of time and hassle and simply have management (in some form, whether that's me, Jay, and/or Jeremy) approve it? If the decision is discretionary, are there particular criteria that the board should consider (above and beyond the listed criteria)? One criteria used in a discussion I had (and I can't recall which of us said it first) is "MICE's strategic interests". What would that phrase mean to you; what are some strategic interests of MICE? For a bit of an absurd example for the thought experiment, imagine that someone was proposing a MICE remote switch, but we knew their goal was to attract a bunch of members and then convert that into a competing exchange. Is that something we would have to agree to simply because they met all the objective criteria? When we were new and little, MICE certainly had an interest in making every decision in a way that would maximize additional peering. However, at this point, the calculus may be (I'd argue is) different. We are moving a lot of traffic and are important to our members / in our region. We have to be careful that our decisions do not destabilize the exchange--in multiple ways: technical, financial, or political. Either way, should we expand the list of objective criteria in the policy? Some examples: * We have previously discussed dedicated vs non-dedicated switches. As time goes along, I am more convinced than ever that MICE remote switches should be required to be dedicated. Non-dedicated switches present extra complications for configuration and troubleshooting. (Jeremy has some additional insight on this that he will share.) I think we should make it a requirement that the switch be dedicated. (Perhaps the board could still grant an exception in exceptional cases.) * Should we require that a remote switch have X number of participants committed? And if so, what is X? In my view, it hardly makes sense to have a remote switch one or two participants. They could just as well backhaul to MICE directly. The criteria for allowing new remote switches vs disconnecting existing remotes need not be the same. If we set a minimum of e.g. 5 participants, we don't necessarily need to disconnect existing remotes that don't meet that. And I think the consensus is that we would not, barring them creating some significant problem. How do we feel about far-away remote switches? (This is a live issue in the context of the proposed Kansas City remote.) Some concerns: * At Wiktel, I peer with MN VoIP's far away extensions in Minneapolis. For example, I peer at SeattleIX (SIX) in Minneapolis. This has caused me some issues. For example, latency-sensitive gaming traffic was tromboning Wiktel-Minneapolis-Seattle-Chicago-Seattle-Minneapolis-Wiktel rather than Wiktel-Chicago-Wiktel. * Is it safe to have a broadcast domain that stretches across multiple states (or half a continent, in the SIX case)? * If we take this to its logical extreme... Imagine we had a MICE extension in every datacenter in the U.S. I think that is pretty obviously untenable for a bunch of reasons. Something close to that is actually within the realm of possibility, with some of these virtual extension things that people are doing. (Reid would be able to cite who.) Granted, nobody is proposing that today, but where should we draw the line? * Far-away extensions may reduce the incentive for CDNs to install locally. Some counterpoints: * Nobody is forcing networks to use the far-away remotes. * If people choose to use them, they take their routing into their own hands. They need to understand the tromboning risk and set their own routing policy. * Counter-counterpoint: Do they? Especially smaller / less experienced networks? Have we adequately warned them? * Counter-counterpoint: The existence of these far-away peers doesn't affect just them. It also affects the other networks with which they peer. Everyone on the exchange needs to be aware of the existence of far-away participants and handle their routing policy accordingly. If there are enough far-away peers, this might tip networks into an opt-in route server policy, or even to only do bilaterals. This will disadvantage small participants. * Networks can backhaul into far-away exchanges directly. * Counter-counterpoint: But a remote switch makes this cheaper / more feasible / more common, which is literally the point of creating such a remote switch. * For a local eyeball network in Des Moines, neither MICE nor Kansas City are far-away from me. Even MICE via Kansas City is not likely to be problematic. This might be the only economically feasible way they could peer with Minneapolis content. -- Richard ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

2 1