- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Please welcome Joe's data Center to MICE!

by Jay Hanke

Name: Joe's Datacenter Port: MN VoIP Remote (Port?) ASN: 19969 IPv4: 206.108.255.134/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:4e01::1/64 Peering Contact: joe(a)joesdatacenter.com Route Servers- YES BFD: NO Welcome Aboard! -- Jay Hanke, President South Front Networks jayhanke(a)southfront.io Phone 612-204-0000

Jan. 10, 2019

Re: New Years Traffic

by David Farmer

FYI, As of right now the LinkedIn post I did 9 days ago, has 104 Likes, 12 Comments, and over 7000 views. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6486075016726269952 Also, based on the discussion yesterday, this morning I posted the following to the LinkedIn comment thread; @Job Snijders it comes down to the interpretation of the Open-IX standard. ”The IXP MUST publish on a publicly available website the total sum of all incoming and outgoing traffic in bps from all connected networks on the public peering VLAN.” We took that as ”the sum of all ingress and egress [together].” Where it seems others took that as ”the sum of all ingress and [separately the sum of all] egress.” We discussed this at our meeting yesterday, and we are going to stick with our interpretation, at least for now. Our graph is clear; our total number is the sum of both ingress and egress, and it has them both separately identified along with the total of the two. This allows the reader to decide how to interpret the data. open-ix.silkstart.com On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 4:18 PM AnthonyAnderberg(a)nuvera.net < AnthonyAnderberg(a)nuvera.net> wrote: > That was my personal opinion too but many years ago the majority opted for > the stacked version, we can chew on it again next week if membership wants. > > > > I had actually been creating/exporting two versions of the graph for a > long time but the non-stacked one never got referenced so it fell by the > wayside during the Arista migration. > > The non-stacked graph was similar looking to what the folks at Torix do > but with a MICEish color scheme: > > https://www.torix.ca/img/torix-day.png > > > > > > [image: signature_1212707895] > > > > *From: *MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of David > Farmer <farmer(a)UMN.EDU> > *Reply-To: *MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > *Date: *Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 3:49 PM > *To: *MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> > *Subject: *Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] New Years Traffic > > > > I did a Linkedin Post on it > > > > https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6486075016726269952 > > > > It has 67 likes, 7 comments, and just over 3000 views as of right now. > > > > The main reason I'm mentioning it is some comments about using > ingress+egress for traffic level. > > > > As I think I've said before, we should use one or the other, not the > sum of them. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 8:35 PM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > Just wanted to congratulate all MICE members for crossing the 500Gig mark > tonight for the first time. > > > > > -- > > =============================================== > 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 > =============================================== > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 > -- =============================================== 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 ===============================================

Jan. 10, 2019

Re: UG 30 Meeting

by Richard Laager

On 1/3/19 6:42 PM, Richard Laager wrote: > The MICE UG 30 meeting will be held Wednesday, January 9, 3:00 pm, at > the 511 Building Cafeteria, 11th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN. > > The agenda and draft UG 29 minutes are attached. > > This is the typical agenda. I'm behind on getting this together, so I > haven't put out a separate call for agenda items. If anyone has agenda > items, please let me know. > > The remote conferencing will be the same as before: > 952-562-5400 passcode MICE (6423). Attached is an updated agenda. The addition is an item about a preemptive RMA of the 100G line card. -- Richard

Jan. 9, 2019

UG 30 Meeting

by Richard Laager

The MICE UG 30 meeting will be held Wednesday, January 9, 3:00 pm, at the 511 Building Cafeteria, 11th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN. The agenda and draft UG 29 minutes are attached. This is the typical agenda. I'm behind on getting this together, so I haven't put out a separate call for agenda items. If anyone has agenda items, please let me know. The remote conferencing will be the same as before: 952-562-5400 passcode MICE (6423). -- Richard

Jan. 4, 2019

Re: New Years Traffic

by AnthonyAnderberg＠nuvera.net

That was my personal opinion too but many years ago the majority opted for the stacked version, we can chew on it again next week if membership wants. I had actually been creating/exporting two versions of the graph for a long time but the non-stacked one never got referenced so it fell by the wayside during the Arista migration. The non-stacked graph was similar looking to what the folks at Torix do but with a MICEish color scheme: https://www.torix.ca/img/torix-day.png [signature_1212707895] From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of David Farmer <farmer(a)UMN.EDU> Reply-To: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Date: Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 3:49 PM To: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] New Years Traffic I did a Linkedin Post on it https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6486075016726269952 It has 67 likes, 7 comments, and just over 3000 views as of right now. The main reason I'm mentioning it is some comments about using ingress+egress for traffic level. As I think I've said before, we should use one or the other, not the sum of them. On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 8:35 PM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com<mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: Just wanted to congratulate all MICE members for crossing the 500Gig mark tonight for the first time. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu<mailto:Email%3Afarmer@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 =============================================== ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Jan. 3, 2019

Re: New Years Traffic

by Andrew Hoyos

If you take a look some of the others that publicly report bandwidth levels, as an example: https://www.seattleix.net/statistics/ https://www.netnod.se/ix-stats/sums/All.html https://www.torix.ca/traffic-statistics/ https://ix-denver.org/traffic/ http://www.kcix.net/ All seem to be reporting/collecting both in/out, but not stacking them together. I’d agree that the 500gbps seems “double counted”. — Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Jan 3, 2019, at 3:48 PM, David Farmer <farmer(a)UMN.EDU> wrote: > > I did a Linkedin Post on it > > https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6486075016726269952 <https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6486075016726269952> > > It has 67 likes, 7 comments, and just over 3000 views as of right now. > > The main reason I'm mentioning it is some comments about using ingress+egress for traffic level. > > As I think I've said before, we should use one or the other, not the sum of them. > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 8:35 PM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com <mailto:jlumby@mnvoip.com>> wrote: > Just wanted to congratulate all MICE members for crossing the 500Gig mark tonight for the first time. > > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu <mailto:Email%3Afarmer@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 > =============================================== > > 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>

Jan. 3, 2019

Re: New Years Traffic

by David Farmer

I did a Linkedin Post on it https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6486075016726269952 It has 67 likes, 7 comments, and just over 3000 views as of right now. The main reason I'm mentioning it is some comments about using ingress+egress for traffic level. As I think I've said before, we should use one or the other, not the sum of them. On Tue, Jan 1, 2019 at 8:35 PM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Just wanted to congratulate all MICE members for crossing the 500Gig mark > tonight for the first time. > -- =============================================== 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 ===============================================

Jan. 3, 2019

Re: New Years Traffic

by Reid Fishler

Woohoo! Reid On Tue, Jan 1, 2019, 9:35 PM Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com wrote: > Just wanted to congratulate all MICE members for crossing the 500Gig mark > tonight for the first time. > >

Jan. 2, 2019

New Years Traffic

by Jeremy Lumby

Just wanted to congratulate all MICE members for crossing the 500Gig mark tonight for the first time.

Jan. 2, 2019

Re: ip route objects in MICE

by Justin Krejci

While I find the idea interesting, I am doubtful there will be any ubiquitous technique that every or even most networks will be willing to implement for this purpose, especially since not every prefix is likely to be presented from a single geo; some operators likely have one prefix broken into smaller networks, each of which are in disparate geos while being presented to eBGP/DFZ as an aggregate prefix because, you know, they are trying to be good netizens by being mindful of RIB and FIB limitations. Even if some sort of self-applied geo-tagging of prefixes were defined clearly by some body like IETF or something, it would likely take a tremendous amount of motivation to get operators to actually implement such a thing and then also keep it up to date over time. We can't even get people to do the sensible BCP38 filtering on a large scale and that has pretty significant benefits whereas I, at least at first glance, don't see any noteworthy value of such a geo-tagging mechanism to provoke active implementation by the majority. Maybe something could be embedded in BGP origin validation rpki... like stuff some additional geo bits stuffed into that. This is not a thoroughly thought out idea, just kind of tossing it out there as it is something that is gaining some momentum and sits in the same realm of administratively assessing BGP prefixes. You might consider something fully within your own administrative control like RTT testing to IP addresses on various prefixes to gauge an approximate distance, though I suppose this idea would be severely unreliable due to many variable conditions affecting RTT that have nothing to do with geographic distance. ¯\_(?)_/¯ Best of luck on your search ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> on behalf of Timothy Peiffer <peiffer(a)UMN.EDU> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2018 3:39 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] ip route objects in MICE I am interested in gathering data for a firewall ruleset that allows more direct usage from networks that are in the metro region of Twin Cities and Duluth, and to a lesser degree communities and surrounding areas for Crookston and Morris. For the participants of MICE, do you have a way of easily presenting your routes by geolocation? I pulled down our route tables for one of our Northern Lights routers connected and matched the base address against max mind geolocate. The result was a list of about 7,000 routes that I thought was unmanageable. Is there a better way, maybe through BGP communities or similar methods, to get more direct relevant info? I want to have a ruleset that permits <ISP x>/minneapolis but denies <ISP x>/atlanta. -- Regards, Tim Peiffer +1 612-626-7884 Network Engineer Office of Information Technology (OIT) University of Minnesota ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 29, 2018