- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: Participants leaking BGP routes for the MICE IXP Block

by Richard Laager

On 12/01/2016 06:56 PM, David Farmer wrote: > 2. Notify transgressors PRIVATELY > 3. Manually, Name and Shame transgressors > 4. Automated, Name and Shame of transgressors > (setup a BGPmon account to mail to MICE-DISCUSS) If you are willing to do the work, I like 2, followed by 3. If you don't want to do the work, then 4. -- Richard

Dec. 2, 2016

Participants leaking BGP routes for the MICE IXP Block

by David Farmer

I have BGPmon set up to notify me of the MICE IXP blocks (IPv4 and IPv6) are being announce in BGP by any other AS that MICE itself. The current BPC is to not even put a route in your IGP for for an exchange block, let alone originate a BGP route for it. http://www.bgp4all.com.au/dokuwiki/_media/conferences/apnic42-ixp-design-bc… See slide 45. In the last 2 or 3 months I have seen three different participant ASNs originate routes for 206.108.255.0/24, haven't seen any for do it for 2001:504:27::0/48. I'm not going to name and shame, at least for past events. But, what should we do about this going forward? 1. Ignore it 2. Notify transgressors PRIVATELY 3. Manually, Name and Shame transgressors 4. Automated, Name and Shame of transgressors (setup a BGPmon account to mail to MICE-DISCUSS) 5. Other ideas? (electro-shock for transgressors :) ) Thanks -- =============================================== 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 ===============================================

Dec. 2, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Jason Hanke

After talking to the accountant, it is my understanding is MICE would not pay income taxes on the donation. On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Brady Kittel <bkittel(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the clarification Jay, so what I was getting at is MICE would > owe taxes on the value of the donation if it were not classified as a > non-profit when the donation was received. > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> > wrote: > >> Also just a big thanks to USI (and Arista?) for the donation. This is not >>> a small amount of hardware. I'm a bit behind the curve but I'm assuming the >>> IX has cleared the hurdles for proper federal non-profit status now? I only >>> ask as we sure don't want to have to pay taxes on the value of a 7504 with >>> blades next April if we aren't yet and thus would need to stall on taking >>> actual possession of the equipment until non-profit status is achieved. >>> >>> >> Our request for 501c6 status has been filed. MICE is allowed to operate >> as a 501c6 until the IRS tells us otherwise. Donations are not tax >> deductible but port fees may be tax deductible as business expenses. >> >> 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 > -- 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

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Brady Kittel

Thanks for the clarification Jay, so what I was getting at is MICE would owe taxes on the value of the donation if it were not classified as a non-profit when the donation was received. On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> wrote: > Also just a big thanks to USI (and Arista?) for the donation. This is not >> a small amount of hardware. I'm a bit behind the curve but I'm assuming the >> IX has cleared the hurdles for proper federal non-profit status now? I only >> ask as we sure don't want to have to pay taxes on the value of a 7504 with >> blades next April if we aren't yet and thus would need to stall on taking >> actual possession of the equipment until non-profit status is achieved. >> >> > Our request for 501c6 status has been filed. MICE is allowed to operate as > a 501c6 until the IRS tells us otherwise. Donations are not tax deductible > but port fees may be tax deductible as business expenses. > > Jay > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Mike Horwath

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 04:52:42PM -0600, Jason Hanke wrote: > Our request for 501c6 status has been filed. MICE is allowed to operate as > a 501c6 until the IRS tells us otherwise. Donations are not tax deductible > but port fees may be tax deductible as business expenses. Check with your accountant - MICE fees could be COGS, OPEX, or could be so many other things. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Jason Hanke

> > Also just a big thanks to USI (and Arista?) for the donation. This is not > a small amount of hardware. I'm a bit behind the curve but I'm assuming the > IX has cleared the hurdles for proper federal non-profit status now? I only > ask as we sure don't want to have to pay taxes on the value of a 7504 with > blades next April if we aren't yet and thus would need to stall on taking > actual possession of the equipment until non-profit status is achieved. > > Our request for 501c6 status has been filed. MICE is allowed to operate as a 501c6 until the IRS tells us otherwise. Donations are not tax deductible but port fees may be tax deductible as business expenses. Jay

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Brady Kittel

Not to wade into deep waters but we are in favor of the proposed billing structure that Jay laid out. To be honest we are just in favor of a model that allows the IX to collect enough money to be stable, remove the current uncertainty around the long term viability of the IX and not drive away members. I think it's worth saying that whatever model is chosen doesn't have to be the perfect and final model. Just one that brings in enough income to service maintenance and support costs we know are required to keep the lights on and start to build up some amount of reserve. It can always be adjusted in a year to account for the needs of exchange and its members and it likely will need to be adjusted every year to account for the actual monetary needs of the exchange and to establish the right run rate of cash on hand to allow for future hardware purchases for expansion. For instance of the donated switch is a 7504 there would logically be a future upgrade to a 7508 chassis and line card adds that need to be accounted for along with the uplift in yearly support costs that come with it. I guess my question is this, is there a scenario where Jay's proposed pricing model would make using the exchange no longer financially viable for any the members that are following this thread? If so how and why and what specific change to his proposed model would change this? I hate to be the cold hearted capitalist here but I really don't want to see MICE fail because we death spiral on the details of the pricing model for another year. Also just a big thanks to USI (and Arista?) for the donation. This is not a small amount of hardware. I'm a bit behind the curve but I'm assuming the IX has cleared the hurdles for proper federal non-profit status now? I only ask as we sure don't want to have to pay taxes on the value of a 7504 with blades next April if we aren't yet and thus would need to stall on taking actual possession of the equipment until non-profit status is achieved. On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> wrote: > Think about the future. If Neutral Path were to be sold, the new owner may >> not have the same altruistic attitude that you have. And the exchange >> should be prepared by having the financial ability to move to another >> solution readily. >> >> > That's part of how the reserve is intended to be used. > > Jay > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: Google/YouTube Issues

by Steve Howard

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: Google/YouTube Issues

by Derek Poehls

Yeah, I think it's an issue with our peering - I preferred routes out my upstream in MPLS and my traceroute completes now (also using google-msp5) Thanks! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Derek Poehls NOC Supervisor/Senior Network Engineer (218) 284-5775 From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Justin Krejci Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2016 3:25 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Google/YouTube Issues No problems here on both v4 and v6 This will tell you from which cluster Youtube is serving your browser based on its network prefix http://redirector.c.youtube.com/report_mapping My v4 is going through MICE (google-msp5) My v6 is going through Chicago (ord38s05) We do not have bilateral BGP session with Google. ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Derek Poehls [dpoehls(a)702COMMUNICATIONS.COM] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 3:09 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Google/YouTube Issues Can anyone tell me if they are seeing issues with YouTube/Google today? We have bilateral peering with Google over MICE which is currently down, and customers that are unable to play videos. Also, I received a notification from Google's peering team saying that there are issues with the GGC in Minneapolis. The strange thing is that I'm writing this email, and not already reading a bunch of them that others have already sent... Perhaps it's because we have the bilateral peering set up and others don't? I have an email into them as well - just figured I'd see what others are seeing. Thanks! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [cid:image001.png@01D21D7D.C7577200] Derek Poehls NOC Supervisor/Senior Network Engineer (218) 284-5775 ________________________________ 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

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: Google/YouTube Issues

by Justin Krejci

No problems here on both v4 and v6 This will tell you from which cluster Youtube is serving your browser based on its network prefix http://redirector.c.youtube.com/report_mapping My v4 is going through MICE (google-msp5) My v6 is going through Chicago (ord38s05) We do not have bilateral BGP session with Google. ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Derek Poehls [dpoehls(a)702COMMUNICATIONS.COM] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 3:09 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Google/YouTube Issues Can anyone tell me if they are seeing issues with YouTube/Google today? We have bilateral peering with Google over MICE which is currently down, and customers that are unable to play videos. Also, I received a notification from Google’s peering team saying that there are issues with the GGC in Minneapolis. The strange thing is that I’m writing this email, and not already reading a bunch of them that others have already sent… Perhaps it’s because we have the bilateral peering set up and others don’t? I have an email into them as well – just figured I’d see what others are seeing. Thanks! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [cid:image001.png@01D21D7D.C7577200] Derek Poehls NOC Supervisor/Senior Network Engineer (218) 284-5775 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Dec. 1, 2016

Google/YouTube Issues

by Derek Poehls

Can anyone tell me if they are seeing issues with YouTube/Google today? We have bilateral peering with Google over MICE which is currently down, and customers that are unable to play videos. Also, I received a notification from Google's peering team saying that there are issues with the GGC in Minneapolis. The strange thing is that I'm writing this email, and not already reading a bunch of them that others have already sent... Perhaps it's because we have the bilateral peering set up and others don't? I have an email into them as well - just figured I'd see what others are seeing. Thanks! -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- [cid:image001.png@01D21D7D.C7577200] Derek Poehls NOC Supervisor/Senior Network Engineer (218) 284-5775

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Jason Hanke

> > Think about the future. If Neutral Path were to be sold, the new owner may > not have the same altruistic attitude that you have. And the exchange > should be prepared by having the financial ability to move to another > solution readily. > > That's part of how the reserve is intended to be used. Jay

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Jason Hanke

> > > The networks in this range are moving the bulk of the traffic on the IX > > Yes, but they are also providing the most value to the IX for all members. > True, and they are receiving the bulk of the value. > > > > Why shouldn’t all 10g ports just be $250/yr? With this layout, I fear > that the “Big Guys” will think you’re dumping the fee load (and downstream > equipment cost) onto them by forcing 100g ports at that cost for n x 10g. > Seems like being agnostic on a port level (no matter how many you have) > would be a better move. > The costs including the xconn and port fee are below just the xconn fee in most major carrier hotels. The reduced 10G initial port is to provide a stepping stone to paid membership while allowing small networks a low-cost way in. At $250 per year per 10G port we don't raise enough money to be stable or to build a reserve for hardware or other expenses. > Right, but you’re leaving out the internal costs for the big guys (or mid > tier/small folks even) of router ports. It’s far cheaper for one of the > big guys to light another 10g port, I’d suspect, than add 100g interfaces. > Maybe that’s changing, but again, I don’t agree with penalizing folks for > adding more traffic to the IX on multiple 10g ports vs single 100g ports. > MICE isn’t paying cross connects, so seems like that should’t be part of > the equation when we look at it from a fee charging perspective. > Each network will have to make the calculation and determine what is in their best interest. MICE is here to serve the members and the overall cost to the members is critical. We have a fixed amount of real estate to work with for ports within the chassis. 100G is a much more efficient than doing large LAG groups. So a 8 member lag eats up a larger portion of the annual support budget. It also requires setup and troubleshooting of 8 ports. On a 10G card with 48 ports, an 8 member LAG uses 12.5% of the slot or 3% of the overall chassis. On a 100G card there are 32 ports, A single 100G uses 3% of a slot and less than 1% of the chassis. Jay

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Bil MacLeslie

On 12/1/16 10:41 AM, Reid Fishler wrote: > Bill- > The problem is we can't charge more than some members use the > exchange, and we can't plan for everything. We may still go to the > membership and ask for support if need-be, but we can't have the cost of > the exchange be too high...look at the other competitive exchanges of > our size...all are doing something similar. Believe me, the board spent > ALOT of time working on this...ALOT. :-) Reid, The fee schedule proposed by Jason covers my concerns, if everyone pays. The anticipated revenue (by Jasons calculation) is $37k. With less than half the budget allocated to operational expenses, I expect building a reserve to buy equipment. That's my point on the hardware side. It seems that your concern is that the proposed fees are too high for many members / or that the fees are disproportionate to the value. I'm not sure which. I'm in favor of a fee structure, not opposed. My points here and in my response to Jason, are to make the members aware that there are real costs associated with running the exchange, and the fees proposed cover more than the obvious things, like ports. Bil -- Bil K. MacLeslie | TGWGTD | ipHouse | www.ipHouse.com Office: 612-337-6337 | Direct: 612-337-6206 | Cell: 612-618-1218

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Bil MacLeslie

On 12/1/16 11:00 AM, Jason Hanke wrote: > 1 - How does $1800 / year cover the costs of actually DOING the > accounting, e.g. creating new members & invoices, processing > payments, calling on collections, etc. This number seems low to me. > Additional thought, some entities will want to pay with a credit > card, we should prepare for this and cover the costs of processing > payments in the budget. > > > Neutral Path is currently donating bookkeeping services to the exchange. > By Neutral Path I really mean Kayla. This is factored into the current > budget. Other than the proposed new invoicing there are less than 10 > transactions per year. We can use Paypal to process credit cards the fee > is about 3%. Jason / All I certainly appreciate the volunteering, but going forward it makes sense to allocate budget to cover the true costs of services the exchange needs - even if that budget isn't used. Think about the future. If Neutral Path were to be sold, the new owner may not have the same altruistic attitude that you have. And the exchange should be prepared by having the financial ability to move to another solution readily. Bil -- Bil K. MacLeslie | TGWGTD | ipHouse | www.ipHouse.com Office: 612-337-6337 | Direct: 612-337-6206 | Cell: 612-618-1218

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Mike Horwath

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 09:39:43AM -0600, Jason Hanke wrote: > USI has arranged for Arista Networks to donate a 7504 switch with > 32x100G and 96x10G ports with one year of support. In year 2, MICE > would be responsible for the ongoing support costs about 14k per > year. There would be one additional slot for future growth. First - thank you USI for diving into this! https://www.arista.com/en/products/7500-series for those that wanna look into what this chassis is capable of. > Here's what I'd propose: > 1G ports= Free (Only 1 port per member, NO LAG allowed) > Initial 10G port= $250 Annual > Each additional 10G port $1000 Annual per port (up to 8 member LAG > allowed) > 100G port $3000 Annual per port My counter commentary + fee list: 1Gbe ports - $250 annual per port, LAG allowed, max 2 10Gbe ports - $500 annual per port, LAG allowed, max 4 40Gbe ports - $2000 annual per port, cause why not just do 100Gbe!?!, LAG max 2, and above no 40Gbe ports were listed so really, do 100Gbe and let's move on, okay? 100Gbe ports - $3000 annual per port, LAG allowed, max 4 Optics provided by the member and must be on the approved list for the hardware (in this case: Arista 7504) - I know that later on Jay mentions that Arista will remove the lockout for them but I don't think MICE should just allow who-flung-poo optics installed because the member is trying to be cheap at the risk of problems with the fabric. Non-participating member - $100 annual, no voting position, feel good fee Participating member - $250 annual, voting position, no port, extra feel good fee. Users who have ports already assigned into a LAG should be grandfathered in for their configuration regardless of LAG port count limit as proposed. If a member is already at 5 10Gbe ports then let them stay at that level. If member wants to add another port then push them towards the 100Gbe solution but allow for a single port increase in LAG size only. > Remote switch operators pay the fee for their main switch ports. > Remote switch participants do not pay a main switch port fee. Seems fair! But if a remote switch operator is charging at a higher rate than paid into the current fees should a portion of that be sent into the funding as well? > No grandfathering, all types of networks are treated the same. YES! > We will not disconnect for non-payment until port run out and > contention occurs. A policy will need to be developed. I don't agree - non-payment == shutdown IMO. And if continues for 3 months is then removed from the fabric and pulled from site. Suspend and comment out the BGP configuration and IP allocation for up to 6 months before removal, and later reallocation of IP space. > Each carrier provides their own optic. Arista has agreed to remove > the vendor lockout for optics. Will they support non-approved optics then? Jay then brings up revenue projections but I think it should go to everyone as this is a single chassis solution. I'd like to see at least a dual chassis solution and members spread across as needed to keep resiliency high. Yes, I know, I am no longer officially part of MICE and my opinion may not matter to all of you. And that's okay :) -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Doug McIntyre

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 10:19:05AM -0600, Steve Howard wrote: > How many 1G ports are on the Arista? Any of the 10G ports can be run at 1G. Likewise, any of the 100G ports can be broken out to 4 x 10G, 4 x 25G, 1? x 40G, 2 x 50G or 1 x 100G. with the correct breakout cables. > Would we continue to use the original switch for 1G ports? I think that would be the best course of action. Right now that is dual-10G connected to the main 10G switch stack. > Do the existing switch and Arista support the same form-factor > optics? Yes, SFP+ form factor for 10G. QSFP for higher speeds. > i.e. Is there a requirement to purchase new optics to be > connected to the new switch under your proposal? Arista says they will disable the vendor lockin on the optics for this deployment. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Jason Hanke

> > 1 - How does $1800 / year cover the costs of actually DOING the > accounting, e.g. creating new members & invoices, processing payments, > calling on collections, etc. This number seems low to me. Additional > thought, some entities will want to pay with a credit card, we should > prepare for this and cover the costs of processing payments in the budget. > Neutral Path is currently donating bookkeeping services to the exchange. By Neutral Path I really mean Kayla. This is factored into the current budget. Other than the proposed new invoicing there are less than 10 transactions per year. We can use Paypal to process credit cards the fee is about 3%. > > 2 - Where is hardware refresh in the budget? I see a clipped sentence in > your message ( This would cover hardware support and Arin fees and > accounting expense with the remainder going) - maybe it was in there? > Depending on the response to the request for payment there is between 8k and 24k annually building up for hardware refresh or additions. A large update will have to be dealt with at the time or with a future rate increase. > > We have been lucky to secure donations of equipment, but what about the > future? Your budget should include setting aside dollars for hardware > expansion and refresh, and not just switches, but route servers too. > Minor additions are figured in, Major replacement is not. > > Additional thoughts, if new technologies emerge and a hardware vendor that > has said technology doesn't feel like donating equipment, how would we > proceed without a hardware budget? And... by accepting donations from > hardware vendors, we are setting the precedent of "picking a winner", and > could cause headache/heartache in the future. > We would have to deal with new technologies as they emerge. We've been accepting hardware donations for quite some time without serious issue. The current kit contains a lot of donated parts. -- 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

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Andrew Hoyos

On Dec 1, 2016, at 10:42 AM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: > > > If we’re going the annual route - any reason/logic behind why the 20g -> 80g range seems to carry a disproportionate amount of the fee load? > > The networks in this range are moving the bulk of the traffic on the IX Yes, but they are also providing the most value to the IX for all members. I think we need to be agnostic about how many ports a member has or how much traffic they are moving. I still think this fee structure unnecessarily classifies a group of the members into paying more on a $/gbps ratio, which doesn’t make sense. Steve’s logic, in his email, makes way more sense to me, and is the totally agnostic - simplify this into a fixed port level fee, and done. 1Gbps=$35/Year (although, I’d argue that this might as well be free at that point for the 1g members) 10Gbps=$350/Year 100Gbps=$3,500/Year > > Why shouldn’t all 10g ports just be $250/yr? With this layout, I fear that the “Big Guys” will think you’re dumping the fee load (and downstream equipment cost) onto them by forcing 100g ports at that cost for n x 10g. Seems like being agnostic on a port level (no matter how many you have) would be a better move. > > Looking at the overall economics to a member the cross connect cost dominates the spend. Specifically when doing lag. If you take the annual fee and convert it to monthly it works out to be about $83 dollars with a $200 cross connect for a monthly total of $283 on a second port. > > For example 4 member 10G lag (monthly): > > Port 1 $200+$21=$221 > Port 2 $200+$83=$283 > Port 3 $200+$83=$283 > Port 4 $200+$83=$283 > ------------------------------- > Total $1070 per month > > A single 100G > Port 1 $200+$250=$450 per month > > This leaves room to cover the incremental 100G optics cost. If the 10G ports were free the 100G would still be a better deal for the big guys. Right, but you’re leaving out the internal costs for the big guys (or mid tier/small folks even) of router ports. It’s far cheaper for one of the big guys to light another 10g port, I’d suspect, than add 100g interfaces. Maybe that’s changing, but again, I don’t agree with penalizing folks for adding more traffic to the IX on multiple 10g ports vs single 100g ports. MICE isn’t paying cross connects, so seems like that should’t be part of the equation when we look at it from a fee charging perspective.

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Jason Hanke

> If we’re going the annual route - any reason/logic behind why the 20g -> 80g range seems to carry a disproportionate amount of the fee load? The networks in this range are moving the bulk of the traffic on the IX > Why shouldn’t all 10g ports just be $250/yr? With this layout, I fear that the “Big Guys” will think you’re dumping the fee load (and downstream equipment cost) onto them by forcing 100g ports at that cost for n x 10g. Seems like being agnostic on a port level (no matter how many you have) would be a better move. Looking at the overall economics to a member the cross connect cost dominates the spend. Specifically when doing lag. If you take the annual fee and convert it to monthly it works out to be about $83 dollars with a $200 cross connect for a monthly total of $283 on a second port. For example 4 member 10G lag (monthly): Port 1 $200+$21=$221 Port 2 $200+$83=$283 Port 3 $200+$83=$283 Port 4 $200+$83=$283 ------------------------------- Total $1070 per month A single 100G Port 1 $200+$250=$450 per month This leaves room to cover the incremental 100G optics cost. If the 10G ports were free the 100G would still be a better deal for the big guys. > I’d also disagree with not allowing multiple 1g ports for customers into a LAG. For small bootstrapped companies, that 1g -> 10g jump can be expensive, and 2xGigE LAG doesn’t seem like a problem in the case where they are hitting that 60-70% on a GigE. Given the Arista architecture and depth of buffers there, I wouldn’t see any technical issue leaving the EX4550 hanging off the 7504, just for 1g customers, if you’re worried about burning “expensive” ports. > Again the cross connect fees dominate the economics at the 1G level. For the initial hardware costs. 1G lag would be allowed on the remote switches if the remote switch operator allowed it. I think all the remote switches would allow it, Neutral Path certainly would. I don't think we've had a request for a 1G lag since we had 10G available on the main switch. All of the aggregate traffic on the "1G" switch is peaking at less than 1G. [image: Inline image 1] Jay

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Reid Fishler

Bill- The problem is we can't charge more than some members use the exchange, and we can't plan for everything. We may still go to the membership and ask for support if need-be, but we can't have the cost of the exchange be too high...look at the other competitive exchanges of our size...all are doing something similar. Believe me, the board spent ALOT of time working on this...ALOT. :-) Reid On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Bil MacLeslie <bil(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > On 12/1/16 9:39 AM, Jason Hanke wrote: > > Arin: $300 >> Accounting: $1800 (includes postage for billing) >> Hardware support: $15000 >> > > Two questions. > > 1 - How does $1800 / year cover the costs of actually DOING the > accounting, e.g. creating new members & invoices, processing payments, > calling on collections, etc. This number seems low to me. Additional > thought, some entities will want to pay with a credit card, we should > prepare for this and cover the costs of processing payments in the budget. > > 2 - Where is hardware refresh in the budget? I see a clipped sentence in > your message ( This would cover hardware support and Arin fees and > accounting expense with the remainder going) - maybe it was in there? > > We have been lucky to secure donations of equipment, but what about the > future? Your budget should include setting aside dollars for hardware > expansion and refresh, and not just switches, but route servers too. > > Additional thoughts, if new technologies emerge and a hardware vendor that > has said technology doesn't feel like donating equipment, how would we > proceed without a hardware budget? And... by accepting donations from > hardware vendors, we are setting the precedent of "picking a winner", and > could cause headache/heartache in the future. > > I strongly suggest we use the port fees to pay for hardware refresh as > well as hardware maintenance. > > Bil > > -- > Bil K. MacLeslie | TGWGTD | ipHouse | www.ipHouse.com > Office: 612-337-6337 | Direct: 612-337-6206 | Cell: 612-618-1218 > > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Bil MacLeslie

On 12/1/16 9:39 AM, Jason Hanke wrote: > Arin: $300 > Accounting: $1800 (includes postage for billing) > Hardware support: $15000 Two questions. 1 - How does $1800 / year cover the costs of actually DOING the accounting, e.g. creating new members & invoices, processing payments, calling on collections, etc. This number seems low to me. Additional thought, some entities will want to pay with a credit card, we should prepare for this and cover the costs of processing payments in the budget. 2 - Where is hardware refresh in the budget? I see a clipped sentence in your message ( This would cover hardware support and Arin fees and accounting expense with the remainder going) - maybe it was in there? We have been lucky to secure donations of equipment, but what about the future? Your budget should include setting aside dollars for hardware expansion and refresh, and not just switches, but route servers too. Additional thoughts, if new technologies emerge and a hardware vendor that has said technology doesn't feel like donating equipment, how would we proceed without a hardware budget? And... by accepting donations from hardware vendors, we are setting the precedent of "picking a winner", and could cause headache/heartache in the future. I strongly suggest we use the port fees to pay for hardware refresh as well as hardware maintenance. Bil -- Bil K. MacLeslie | TGWGTD | ipHouse | www.ipHouse.com Office: 612-337-6337 | Direct: 612-337-6206 | Cell: 612-618-1218

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Dean Bahls

I really like this proposal! Small users can connect painlessly. (I might suggest that LAG is optional but they have to pay something for the 2nd+ 10G ports. Maybe it's $250 for each additional 1G annually?) >From CNS's perspective, we'd be into it for $2,250 annually for the three 10G ports that we consume on the main switch. This is reasonable and affordable. If we decide to charge our downstream customers to offset the cost, that's on us. Thanks to USI and Arista as well! Dean -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 9:40 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment All- Our main switch is nearing the end of its lifespan and the available port count is dwindling. At the current rate of burn we will be out of ports in early-2017. USI has arranged for Arista Networks to donate a 7504 switch with 32x100G and 96x10G ports with one year of support. In year 2, MICE would be responsible for the ongoing support costs about 14k per year. There would be one additional slot for future growth. I would like to make a formal request for comment and add the following item to the UG agenda. Here's what I'd propose: 1G ports= Free (Only 1 port per member, NO LAG allowed) Initial 10G port= $250 Annual Each additional 10G port $1000 Annual per port (up to 8 member LAG allowed) 100G port $3000 Annual per port Remote switch operators pay the fee for their main switch ports. Remote switch participants do not pay a main switch port fee. No grandfathering, all types of networks are treated the same. We will not disconnect for non-payment until port run out and contention occurs. A policy will need to be developed. New ports billed at time of allocation. Each carrier provides their own optic. Arista has agreed to remove the vendor lockout for optics. This will yield about $37k of annual revenue assuming everyone pays. We don't disconnect for non-payment but members in good standing would take priority over non-paying members. This would cover hardware support and Arin fees and accounting expense with the remainder going If we extended the full fees to all 10G ports this would generate $70k annually. Looking out, I don't think we will need to raise that much cash to keep operating as we are now. Ongoing Expense looks something like this: Arin: $300 Accounting: $1800 (includes postage for billing) Hardware support: $15000 This financial projection assumes we add no additional ports than what is currently allocated. I'm seeking input/amendment from the membership prior to the board taking action for the 2017 year. -- 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

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Steve Howard

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Andrew Hoyos

On Dec 1, 2016, at 9:39 AM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: > > USI has arranged for Arista Networks to donate a 7504 switch with > 32x100G and 96x10G ports with one year of support. In year 2, MICE > would be responsible for the ongoing support costs about 14k per year. > There would be one additional slot for future growth. That’s awesome, thanks USI and Arista! Seems like a no brainer to proceed with that option. > Here's what I'd propose: > 1G ports= Free (Only 1 port per member, NO LAG allowed) > Initial 10G port= $250 Annual > Each additional 10G port $1000 Annual per port (up to 8 member LAG allowed) > 100G port $3000 Annual per port If we’re going the annual route - any reason/logic behind why the 20g -> 80g range seems to carry a disproportionate amount of the fee load? Why shouldn’t all 10g ports just be $250/yr? With this layout, I fear that the “Big Guys” will think you’re dumping the fee load (and downstream equipment cost) onto them by forcing 100g ports at that cost for n x 10g. Seems like being agnostic on a port level (no matter how many you have) would be a better move. For comparison on a IX that charges yearly and is non-profit like MICE, NWAX might be a good example, which is charging: 1gbps Port 1st port FREE - additional, $295/month 10gbps Port $295/month 100gbps Port $1995/month + $6000 NRC I’d also disagree with not allowing multiple 1g ports for customers into a LAG. For small bootstrapped companies, that 1g -> 10g jump can be expensive, and 2xGigE LAG doesn’t seem like a problem in the case where they are hitting that 60-70% on a GigE. Given the Arista architecture and depth of buffers there, I wouldn’t see any technical issue leaving the EX4550 hanging off the 7504, just for 1g customers, if you’re worried about burning “expensive” ports. Food for thought, YMMV, etc. -andrew -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Jeremy Lumby

I think this is a great fee proposal, and special thanks to USI, and Arista -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jason Hanke Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 9:40 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment All- Our main switch is nearing the end of its lifespan and the available port count is dwindling. At the current rate of burn we will be out of ports in early-2017. USI has arranged for Arista Networks to donate a 7504 switch with 32x100G and 96x10G ports with one year of support. In year 2, MICE would be responsible for the ongoing support costs about 14k per year. There would be one additional slot for future growth. I would like to make a formal request for comment and add the following item to the UG agenda. Here's what I'd propose: 1G ports= Free (Only 1 port per member, NO LAG allowed) Initial 10G port= $250 Annual Each additional 10G port $1000 Annual per port (up to 8 member LAG allowed) 100G port $3000 Annual per port Remote switch operators pay the fee for their main switch ports. Remote switch participants do not pay a main switch port fee. No grandfathering, all types of networks are treated the same. We will not disconnect for non-payment until port run out and contention occurs. A policy will need to be developed. New ports billed at time of allocation. Each carrier provides their own optic. Arista has agreed to remove the vendor lockout for optics. This will yield about $37k of annual revenue assuming everyone pays. We don't disconnect for non-payment but members in good standing would take priority over non-paying members. This would cover hardware support and Arin fees and accounting expense with the remainder going If we extended the full fees to all 10G ports this would generate $70k annually. Looking out, I don't think we will need to raise that much cash to keep operating as we are now. Ongoing Expense looks something like this: Arin: $300 Accounting: $1800 (includes postage for billing) Hardware support: $15000 This financial projection assumes we add no additional ports than what is currently allocated. I'm seeking input/amendment from the membership prior to the board taking action for the 2017 year. -- 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

Dec. 1, 2016

MICE Fees Proposal/UG Agenda Item/Request for Comment

by Jason Hanke

All- Our main switch is nearing the end of its lifespan and the available port count is dwindling. At the current rate of burn we will be out of ports in early-2017. USI has arranged for Arista Networks to donate a 7504 switch with 32x100G and 96x10G ports with one year of support. In year 2, MICE would be responsible for the ongoing support costs about 14k per year. There would be one additional slot for future growth. I would like to make a formal request for comment and add the following item to the UG agenda. Here's what I'd propose: 1G ports= Free (Only 1 port per member, NO LAG allowed) Initial 10G port= $250 Annual Each additional 10G port $1000 Annual per port (up to 8 member LAG allowed) 100G port $3000 Annual per port Remote switch operators pay the fee for their main switch ports. Remote switch participants do not pay a main switch port fee. No grandfathering, all types of networks are treated the same. We will not disconnect for non-payment until port run out and contention occurs. A policy will need to be developed. New ports billed at time of allocation. Each carrier provides their own optic. Arista has agreed to remove the vendor lockout for optics. This will yield about $37k of annual revenue assuming everyone pays. We don't disconnect for non-payment but members in good standing would take priority over non-paying members. This would cover hardware support and Arin fees and accounting expense with the remainder going If we extended the full fees to all 10G ports this would generate $70k annually. Looking out, I don't think we will need to raise that much cash to keep operating as we are now. Ongoing Expense looks something like this: Arin: $300 Accounting: $1800 (includes postage for billing) Hardware support: $15000 This financial projection assumes we add no additional ports than what is currently allocated. I'm seeking input/amendment from the membership prior to the board taking action for the 2017 year. -- 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

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: GigaPoP Remote Switch

by David Farmer

We going to sponsor/operate a full blown remote switch soonish, likely 100G connected we working our way through a major purchasing cycle and have interest from a number of other entities. Please be patient, the wheels of bureaucracy grind slowly, but inevitably. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 30, 2016, at 19:07, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > Should the GigaPoP be considered a "remote switch" for MICE? > > According to the participants list, WiscNet is connecting via the > GigaPoP, but has their own IP. So it seems some layer 2 switching is > happening there. > > -- > Richard

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: GigaPoP Remote Switch

by Jeremy Lumby

I would think it should be considered one. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 7:07 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] GigaPoP Remote Switch Should the GigaPoP be considered a "remote switch" for MICE? According to the participants list, WiscNet is connecting via the GigaPoP, but has their own IP. So it seems some layer 2 switching is happening there. -- Richard

Dec. 1, 2016

GigaPoP Remote Switch

by Richard Laager

Should the GigaPoP be considered a "remote switch" for MICE? According to the participants list, WiscNet is connecting via the GigaPoP, but has their own IP. So it seems some layer 2 switching is happening there. -- Richard

Dec. 1, 2016

Re: Please allocate xe-2/0/8 to Arvig

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:09:52AM -0600, Jason Hanke wrote: > Please allocate xe-2/0/8 on the main switch to Arvig. > > This will be their second port and they would like to convert to LAG. Sure, I have allocated xe-2/0/8 to Arvig as the their 2nd 10G link, setting them up in LAG group ae14, with LACP. They can contact us whenever they are ready to swing xe-0/0/7 into the LAG as well. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Nov. 30, 2016

Re: Please allocate port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop

by Jason Hanke

I had 2 requests in November for additional Gigapop connections. If the Gigapop doesn't need the last one we can reallocate it. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > That was the 4th. > xe-0/0/11.0 > xe-0/0/12.0 > xe-2/0/27.0 > are talking now > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:59:49AM -0600, Colin Murphy wrote: >> Jason & Doug, >> How many ports are now assigned to the GigaPoP? We were just recently >> assigned xe-2/0/27 for a total of 3 x 10 LAG. If a 4th was assigned, we >> don't need it at this time. >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Colin Murphy >> Sr. Network Engineer >> Office of Information Technology >> University of Minnesota >> Northern Lights Gigapop >> Desk: 612-626-0870 >> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:57:45AM -0600, Jason Hanke wrote: >> > > Please add port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop lag. >> > > >> > > Welcome aboard (again)! >> > >> > Sure, all set, added this port into LAG ae0 to turnup alongside the others. >> > >> > -- >> > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> >> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ >> > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades >> > > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

Nov. 30, 2016

Re: Please allocate port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop

by Doug McIntyre

That was the 4th. xe-0/0/11.0 xe-0/0/12.0 xe-2/0/27.0 are talking now On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:59:49AM -0600, Colin Murphy wrote: > Jason & Doug, > How many ports are now assigned to the GigaPoP? We were just recently > assigned xe-2/0/27 for a total of 3 x 10 LAG. If a 4th was assigned, we > don't need it at this time. > > > Thanks, > > Colin Murphy > Sr. Network Engineer > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > Northern Lights Gigapop > Desk: 612-626-0870 > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:57:45AM -0600, Jason Hanke wrote: > > > Please add port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop lag. > > > > > > Welcome aboard (again)! > > > > Sure, all set, added this port into LAG ae0 to turnup alongside the others. > > > > -- > > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades > > -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Nov. 30, 2016

Re: Please allocate port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop

by Colin Murphy

Jason & Doug, How many ports are now assigned to the GigaPoP? We were just recently assigned xe-2/0/27 for a total of 3 x 10 LAG. If a 4th was assigned, we don't need it at this time. Thanks, Colin Murphy Sr. Network Engineer Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota Northern Lights Gigapop Desk: 612-626-0870 On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:57:45AM -0600, Jason Hanke wrote: > > Please add port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop lag. > > > > Welcome aboard (again)! > > Sure, all set, added this port into LAG ae0 to turnup alongside the others. > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades >

Nov. 30, 2016

Re: Please allocate port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 08:57:45AM -0600, Jason Hanke wrote: > Please add port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop lag. > > Welcome aboard (again)! Sure, all set, added this port into LAG ae0 to turnup alongside the others. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Nov. 30, 2016

Please allocate port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop

by Jason Hanke

Please add port xe-0/1/3 to the GigaPop lag. Welcome aboard (again)! -- 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

Nov. 30, 2016

MICE 10G Ports

by Jason Hanke

We are VERY low on 10G ports on the main switch. There are several 10G ports that are down or exchanging very little traffic: Onvoy xe-0/0/5 Unggoy xe-2/0/2 (initial turn up) HBC xe-2/0/10 Fastly xe-0/2/0,xe2/0/5 (initial turn up) Amazon ae1 (initial turn up) -- 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

Nov. 30, 2016

Please allocate xe-2/0/8 to Arvig

by Jason Hanke

Please allocate xe-2/0/8 on the main switch to Arvig. This will be their second port and they would like to convert to LAG. -- 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

Nov. 30, 2016

UG 22 - Call for Agenda

by Richard Laager

If you have agenda items for the upcoming UG 22, please send them to me. -- Richard

Nov. 29, 2016

Re: Fee Poll results

by Reid Fishler

I believe the board will have something a little more structured shortly. Reid On Nov 28, 2016 12:27 PM, "Andrew Hoyos" <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Not sure if Facebook is the best way to gather a good representation of > the entire member base? > Could we do the same poll via a google form or something? I’d be happy to > set something up. > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com > > > > > On Nov 28, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> > wrote: > > > > Here are the results from the over the weekend Fee poll: > > > > Recurring (Annual or Monthly Fees) 12 votes > > One time Fees 8 votes > > Optional, but invoiced to begin with 3 votes > > No Fees 1 vote > > > > -- > > 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 > >

Nov. 28, 2016

Re: Fee Poll results

by Andrew Hoyos

Not sure if Facebook is the best way to gather a good representation of the entire member base? Could we do the same poll via a google form or something? I’d be happy to set something up. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Nov 28, 2016, at 11:05 AM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: > > Here are the results from the over the weekend Fee poll: > > Recurring (Annual or Monthly Fees) 12 votes > One time Fees 8 votes > Optional, but invoiced to begin with 3 votes > No Fees 1 vote > > -- > 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

Nov. 28, 2016

Fee Poll results

by Jason Hanke

Here are the results from the over the weekend Fee poll: Recurring (Annual or Monthly Fees) 12 votes One time Fees 8 votes Optional, but invoiced to begin with 3 votes No Fees 1 vote -- 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

Nov. 28, 2016

Port Fees Poll

by Jason Hanke

I've posted a Facebook poll looking for member input on port fees: https://www.facebook.com/events/179450035795693/permalink/197514153989281/ Also, please rsvp on the facebook event. -- 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

Nov. 25, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Dave Williams

I would like to connect to them to have access to both their services and MICE from 1 cross connect. This idea isn't new, it's why we are connected to Mankato's remote switch. Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)GMAIL.COM> Date: 11/22/16 10:54 AM (GMT-06:00) To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having this in place? Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch at 511. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Jeremy Lumby

To further add to Anthony's comments, I plan on keeping the MICE access portion of the remote switch completely free even if MICE starts charging port fees on the main switch. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 11:57 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. In this respect Jeremy's plan is similar to the CNS and Mankato Networks remote switches, which are both within a few dozen feet of the main switch stack. I can certainly picture that potential members who were quite small would need to carefully weigh the cost of a dedicated main switch cross connect, especially in the beginning when the value-add is unknown. If I put my "guy counting the traffic" hat on I'd like to be able to enumerate the individual member's links, but understand that if their switch port is used for multiple things breaking out MICE traffic will be problematic so we'd need to just count the aggregate uplink in/out traffic. That's what we do with the Mankato Networks remote switch today. With my MICE tech hat on we've said that if a participant was causing trouble behind a remote switch we didn't have access to we'd cut off the remote switch's uplink if we were unable to get ahold of the remote switch operator. That's the situation with the Neutral Path and CNS remote switches today (not that we've ever had trouble with them.) So my $0.02 would be that as we've grown we've struggled with how to keep costs reasonable for smaller members, and that this provides them with one more option to participate - so it's all good. Cheers, anthony Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net www.nutelecom.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:54 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having this in place? Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch at 511. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Shaun Carlson

I'm on board with this. I think the more we can do to help the smaller members afford to connect, the better. s *Shaun Carlson*Director of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:56 AM, anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net < anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net> wrote: > > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. > > In this respect Jeremy's plan is similar to the CNS and Mankato Networks > remote switches, which are both within a few dozen feet of the main switch > stack. I can certainly picture that potential members who were quite small > would need to carefully weigh the cost of a dedicated main switch cross > connect, especially in the beginning when the value-add is unknown. > > If I put my "guy counting the traffic" hat on I'd like to be able to > enumerate the individual member's links, but understand that if their > switch port is used for multiple things breaking out MICE traffic will be > problematic so we'd need to just count the aggregate uplink in/out > traffic. That's what we do with the Mankato Networks remote switch today. > > With my MICE tech hat on we've said that if a participant was causing > trouble behind a remote switch we didn't have access to we'd cut off the > remote switch's uplink if we were unable to get ahold of the remote switch > operator. That's the situation with the Neutral Path and CNS remote > switches today (not that we've ever had trouble with them.) > > So my $0.02 would be that as we've grown we've struggled with how to keep > costs reasonable for smaller members, and that this provides them with one > more option to participate - so it's all good. > > Cheers, > anthony > > Anthony Anderberg > Sr. Systems Analyst > 320-234-5239 > anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net > www.nutelecom.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of > Andrew Hoyos > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:54 AM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > > > On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. > > Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be > enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, > beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional > transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having > this in place? > > Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch > at 511. > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com >

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by anthonyanderberg＠nu-telecom.net

> Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. In this respect Jeremy's plan is similar to the CNS and Mankato Networks remote switches, which are both within a few dozen feet of the main switch stack. I can certainly picture that potential members who were quite small would need to carefully weigh the cost of a dedicated main switch cross connect, especially in the beginning when the value-add is unknown. If I put my "guy counting the traffic" hat on I'd like to be able to enumerate the individual member's links, but understand that if their switch port is used for multiple things breaking out MICE traffic will be problematic so we'd need to just count the aggregate uplink in/out traffic. That's what we do with the Mankato Networks remote switch today. With my MICE tech hat on we've said that if a participant was causing trouble behind a remote switch we didn't have access to we'd cut off the remote switch's uplink if we were unable to get ahold of the remote switch operator. That's the situation with the Neutral Path and CNS remote switches today (not that we've ever had trouble with them.) So my $0.02 would be that as we've grown we've struggled with how to keep costs reasonable for smaller members, and that this provides them with one more option to participate - so it's all good. Cheers, anthony Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net www.nutelecom.net -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:54 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having this in place? Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch at 511. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Jeremy Lumby

The value exists in connecting more smaller participants to MICE. Right now the price of the cross connect can be a deterrent for people who are pushing less than 100M My hope is to bring more people in by offering my other services alongside MICE access on the same cross connect. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Andrew Hoyos Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:54 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request > On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having this in place? Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch at 511. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Andrew Hoyos

> On Nov 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)WIKTEL.COM> wrote: > > The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in > Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. Given this switch would be located in 511, would more new members be enabled to more easily connect by having this remote switch in place, beyond just MN VoIP? If so, how many? Or is there some additional transport/regional areas you are opening up for access to MICE by having this in place? Otherwise, I’m struggling to see much value in having yet another switch at 511. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Gary Glissendorf

What's the need for a remote switch in the same building as the Core Switches? Are they running out of ports Gary Glissendorf | Network Architect gary.glissendorf(a)sdncommunications.com | 2900 W 10th St. | Sioux Falls, SD 57104 USA Direct +1.605.978.3558 | Mobile +1.605.359.3737 | TF +1.800.247.1442 | Fax +1.605.334.4782 “Be Excellent to Each Other” -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 10:44 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] MN VoIP Remote Switch Request The board has received a request for a new remote switch. In accordance with our procedures, I'm bringing this to the community for discussion. After this, the board will vote on the proposal. The switch would be operated by MN VoIP. It would be located in Cologix's suite 100 in the 511 Building. Jeremy Lumby wrote: > I would promise to notify any members connecting to the switch that > they are not on the main switch, upgrade my link to the main MICE > switch if the traffic goes above 66% and impose MAC, and BDPU limits > on all member facing ports connecting to the remote switch. To get > started I would upgrade to a 10G single port LAG The switch may not be dedicated to MICE. As such, the MICE technical committee may not have configuration access to the switch. SNMP access (for graphing individual ports) also may not be available, depending on build out. -- Richard ________________________________ ***This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, use or distribution of the information included in this message is prohibited -- Please immediately and permanently delete.***

Nov. 22, 2016