- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

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

MN VoIP Remote Switch Request

by Richard Laager

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

Nov. 22, 2016

Re: 20G hotter than normal

by Ben Wiechman

It has been rough here too. How did one person put it? People are having a hard time NOT driving into power poles. heh Ben Wiechman Network Engineer IV | Arvig Direct: 320.256.0184 Cell: 320.247.3224 Office: 320.256.7471 ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 4:55 PM, anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net < anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net> wrote: > Sections of our territory out here in the middle of the state have been > without power much of the day. > > > > https://info.mcleodcoop.com/oms/outageMap > > > > > > > > *Anthony Anderberg* > > Sr. Systems Analyst > > [image: NUtel_email_logo_1] > > 320-234-5239 > > anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net > > *www.nutelecom.net <http://www.nutelecom.net>* > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] *On Behalf > Of *Justin Krejci > *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2016 4:49 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] 20G hotter than normal > > > > As long as people are not also affected by the inevitable power outages > that come with storms. > > We are aware of some power outages in Minneapolis and surrounding area > already. :( > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Jason > Hanke [jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET] > *Sent:* Friday, November 18, 2016 2:15 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* [MICE-DISCUSS] 20G hotter than normal > > Bad weather must be good for MICE. :) > > > > Could be a big night. > > > > -- > > 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 > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Nov. 18, 2016

Re: 20G hotter than normal

by anthonyanderberg＠nu-telecom.net

Sections of our territory out here in the middle of the state have been without power much of the day. https://info.mcleodcoop.com/oms/outageMap Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst [NUtel_email_logo_1] 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net<mailto:anthonyanderberg@nu-telecom.net> www.nutelecom.net<http://www.nutelecom.net> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Justin Krejci Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 4:49 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] 20G hotter than normal As long as people are not also affected by the inevitable power outages that come with storms. We are aware of some power outages in Minneapolis and surrounding area already. :( ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Jason Hanke [jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 2:15 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] 20G hotter than normal Bad weather must be good for MICE. :) Could be a big night. -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net<mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net> www.neutralpath.net<http://www.neutralpath.net> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Nov. 18, 2016

Re: 20G hotter than normal

by Justin Krejci

As long as people are not also affected by the inevitable power outages that come with storms. We are aware of some power outages in Minneapolis and surrounding area already. :( ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Jason Hanke [jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET] Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 2:15 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] 20G hotter than normal Bad weather must be good for MICE. :) Could be a big night. -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net<mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net> www.neutralpath.net<http://www.neutralpath.net> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Nov. 18, 2016

20G hotter than normal

by Jason Hanke

Bad weather must be good for MICE. :) Could be a big night. -- 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. 18, 2016

Re: Great Plains additional 10G port

by Jason Hanke

Correction, Please allocate Great Plains Communications xe-2/0/17 On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> wrote: > Please allocate Great Plains Communications xe-2/0/19. > > They will also need to convert to a LAG configuration with their existing > port. > > -- > 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 > -- 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. 18, 2016

Great Plains additional 10G port

by Jason Hanke

Please allocate Great Plains Communications xe-2/0/19. They will also need to convert to a LAG configuration with their existing port. -- 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. 18, 2016

IX Denver Event

by Jason Hanke

IX Denver is having a social December 5th. If you're in the Denver area it'd be a great place to talk peering. Event info here: https://www.facebook.com/events/332369997122169/ -- 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. 16, 2016

Re: Additional 10G port for GigaPop

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 09:33:49AM -0600, Jason Hanke wrote: > I have allocated xe-2/0/27 to be added to the GigaPop LAG (ae0). I've added in xe-2/0/27 into AE0 for them to expand. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Nov. 16, 2016

Re: Tax-Exempt Filing (Was: Re: MICE Port Runout)

by Reid Fishler

Thanks from South Africa! Reid On Nov 16, 2016 4:38 PM, "Jason Hanke" <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> wrote: > Thanks Richard for taking this and running with it! > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> > wrote: > >> The tax-exempt application is in the mail! >> >> I'd like to thank everyone who has worked on this process, including but >> not limited to: Shaun, Jeremy, Brad Donaldson, Jay, and Reid. >> >> -- >> Richard >> > > > > -- > 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 > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Nov. 16, 2016

Additional 10G port for GigaPop

by Jason Hanke

I have allocated xe-2/0/27 to be added to the GigaPop LAG (ae0). Welcome aboard! -- 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. 16, 2016

Re: Tax-Exempt Filing (Was: Re: MICE Port Runout)

by Jason Hanke

Thanks Richard for taking this and running with it! On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager(a)wiktel.com> wrote: > The tax-exempt application is in the mail! > > I'd like to thank everyone who has worked on this process, including but > not limited to: Shaun, Jeremy, Brad Donaldson, Jay, and Reid. > > -- > Richard > -- 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. 16, 2016

Tax-Exempt Filing (Was: Re: MICE Port Runout)

by Richard Laager

The tax-exempt application is in the mail! I'd like to thank everyone who has worked on this process, including but not limited to: Shaun, Jeremy, Brad Donaldson, Jay, and Reid. -- Richard

Nov. 15, 2016

Re: MICE Equipment Diagram

by Richard Laager

On 11/15/2016 01:50 PM, Mike Johnston wrote: > Thank you for the feedback. Attached is a PDF and ODG document with the > changes that have been discussed. Richard mentioned he would put them > on the website. Thanks Mike! I've uploaded this to the website. It's on the Technical page. I also fixed the formatting mistake on the participants page. Thanks for letting me know. -- Richard

Nov. 15, 2016

Re: MRS2 go down?

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 08:48:49PM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: > Back up a few minutes ago. We got in here, and found the cable or copper SFP plugging into the EX4550 port was slightly loose. It wasn't the back port (which I tried first). We reseated the copper SFP, and the cable, and the port has been up and stable since. It should be good now. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Nov. 15, 2016

Re: MRS2 go down?

by Frank Bulk

Back up a few minutes ago. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 1:58 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] MRS2 go down? We saw the MICE route server #2 go down around 1:47 pm? Frank

Nov. 15, 2016

Re: MRS2 go down?

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 02:09:59PM -0600, Doug McIntyre wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 02:03:00PM -0600, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > > I am seeing the same, but I am 45 minutes away, so I cannot quickly get in to take a look. Is someone else closer? > > I can probably get there in 30 minutes or so. I'll start walking on over then to see what happened to the port/wire. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Nov. 15, 2016

Re: MRS2 go down?

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 02:03:00PM -0600, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > I am seeing the same, but I am 45 minutes away, so I cannot quickly get in to take a look. Is someone else closer? I can probably get there in 30 minutes or so. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Nov. 15, 2016

Re: MRS2 go down?

by Jeremy Lumby

I am seeing the same, but I am 45 minutes away, so I cannot quickly get in to take a look. Is someone else closer? From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Matthew Beckwell Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 2:00 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MRS2 go down? Confirmed, seeing the same here, Can't ping 206.108.255.2 or 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 from our port on the EX4200. ~Matthew On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: We saw the MICE route server #2 go down around 1:47 pm? Frank To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Nov. 15, 2016

Re: MRS2 go down?

by Matthew Beckwell

Confirmed, seeing the same here, Can't ping 206.108.255.2 or 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 from our port on the EX4200. ~Matthew On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: > We saw the MICE route server #2 go down around 1:47 pm? > > Frank >

Nov. 15, 2016

Re: MRS2 go down?

by Andrew Hoyos

Same here. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Nov 15, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Frank Bulk <fbulk(a)mypremieronline.com> wrote: > > We saw the MICE route server #2 go down around 1:47 pm? > > Frank

Nov. 15, 2016

Re: MRS2 go down?

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 07:58:16PM +0000, Frank Bulk wrote: > We saw the MICE route server #2 go down around 1:47 pm? Somebody poking around in the cabinet?? bge1: link state changed to DOWN bge1: link state changed to UP bge1: link state changed to DOWN bge1: link state changed to UP bge1: link state changed to DOWN bge1: link state changed to UP bge1: link state changed to DOWN bge1: link state changed to UP bge1: link state changed to DOWN bge1: link state changed to UP bge1: link state changed to DOWN -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Nov. 15, 2016

MRS2 go down?

by Frank Bulk

We saw the MICE route server #2 go down around 1:47 pm? Frank

Nov. 15, 2016

Re: MICE Equipment Diagram

by Mike Johnston

Thank you for the feedback. Attached is a PDF and ODG document with the changes that have been discussed. Richard mentioned he would put them on the website.

Nov. 15, 2016

Re: MICE Equipment Diagram

by Jeremy Lumby

I agree that the ON LOAN notation is the only one that should be there since it is a technical document, and we need to plan to give it back as soon as we can feasibly upgrade out of it. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 12:58 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] MICE Equipment Diagram While I certainly appreciate the donations and absolutely support crediting donors (which we do on the website), I don't see a need to list them on the diagram, since it has no technical bearing. I think there is some value to keeping the "on loan" notation for the one switch. On 11/14/2016 01:07 PM, Doug McIntyre wrote: > There is one other thing that could be added. There is also a "looking > glass/route view" router setup that is hanging off ge-0/0/0 on the > 1G switch stack. Sure, why not. DNS names would definitely be nice: > It's DNS name is lg.micemn.net. > > I call the 10G switch stack 'core-sw1.micemn.net', and the 1G switch stack > 'core-sw2.micemn.net'. These DNS names are in place. I'll definitely get this on the website. But we really should have the original source too, not just the PDF. If you want the easy way, just email me both files. If you want to do all the work yourself, you could submit a pull request against the repository: https://github.com/rlaager/mice-website -- Richard

Nov. 15, 2016

Re: MICE Equipment Diagram

by Richard Laager

While I certainly appreciate the donations and absolutely support crediting donors (which we do on the website), I don't see a need to list them on the diagram, since it has no technical bearing. I think there is some value to keeping the "on loan" notation for the one switch. On 11/14/2016 01:07 PM, Doug McIntyre wrote: > There is one other thing that could be added. There is also a "looking > glass/route view" router setup that is hanging off ge-0/0/0 on the > 1G switch stack. Sure, why not. DNS names would definitely be nice: > It's DNS name is lg.micemn.net. > > I call the 10G switch stack 'core-sw1.micemn.net', and the 1G switch stack > 'core-sw2.micemn.net'. These DNS names are in place. I'll definitely get this on the website. But we really should have the original source too, not just the PDF. If you want the easy way, just email me both files. If you want to do all the work yourself, you could submit a pull request against the repository: https://github.com/rlaager/mice-website -- Richard

Nov. 15, 2016

Re: MICE Equipment Diagram

by Nevin Lyne

> You could note who donated the route server hardware. I believe Arcustech > did one, and Implex did one, and maybe ipHouse had one of them in the mix? > I left spare hardware down there ready to plug in if ever needed to. > Lots of people offered, so sorry if I don't remember right. We initially donated two servers for the route servers, and I believe donated either parts or another one to replace a failing one at some point. I would have to look back in emails with Doug to confirm. -Nevin -- Nevin Lyne -- Founder & Director of Technology -- Arcustech, LLC. - arcustech.com -- Gippy's Internet Solutions, LLC. - enginehosting.com

Nov. 14, 2016

Re: MICE Equipment Diagram

by Doug McIntyre

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 12:29:42PM -0600, Mike Johnston wrote: > Attached is a diagram that I have have built depicting the MICE equipment > and the remote switches. I have included a few notes provided by Jeremy. I > have also included port and LAG descriptors, which I was able to obtain from > list archives, the website, and cacti. > 1) Is it accurate? Please elaborate if not. It looks to be for me. There is one other thing that could be added. There is also a "looking glass/route view" router setup that is hanging off ge-0/0/0 on the 1G switch stack. It's DNS name is lg.micemn.net. If you wanted to note who donated it, it was MNVoIP. I call the 10G switch stack 'core-sw1.micemn.net', and the 1G switch stack 'core-sw2.micemn.net'. These DNS names are in place. You could note who donated the route server hardware. I believe Arcustech did one, and Implex did one, and maybe ipHouse had one of them in the mix? I left spare hardware down there ready to plug in if ever needed to. Lots of people offered, so sorry if I don't remember right. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Nov. 14, 2016

MICE Equipment Diagram

by Mike Johnston

Attached is a diagram that I have have built depicting the MICE equipment and the remote switches. I have included a few notes provided by Jeremy. I have also included port and LAG descriptors, which I was able to obtain from list archives, the website, and cacti. This diagram is mostly intended to be a visual aid when having technical discussion. Diagramming individual participants was not included in the scope of this project. I am interested in constructive feedback, specifically: 1) Is it accurate? Please elaborate if not. 2) Is anything missing that is important to note? For example, is it important to note the management interfaces of the Route Servers? Obviously, we can only put so much information on a single sheet of paper. 3) Is anything not completely obvious? If not, then I need better notes, a key/legend, etc.. Thanks, Mike Johnston Wikstrom Telephone Company

Nov. 14, 2016

Re: Traffic Drop

by Jason Hanke

Neutral Path had a fiber cut just south of our MSP1 site (in Belle Plaine) about 1 pm yesterday. It looks like there was a bunch of CDN-ish traffic surge during the day. On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 8:45 PM, Ben Wiechman <ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com> wrote: > We had some unusual traffic patterns this afternoon too. A huge surge, with > a massive dip early evening and now traffic appears to be flowing at fairly > typical levels. Weird. > > > Ben Wiechman > Network Engineer IV | Arvig > Direct: 320.256.0184 > Cell: 320.247.3224 > Office: 320.256.7471 > ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com > > On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: >> >> I noticed a huge drop in MICE traffic, and was wondering if there was a >> fiber cut somewhere, or some other underlying reason for the drop off. > > > > ________________________________ > > 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

Nov. 10, 2016

Re: Traffic Drop

by Ben Wiechman

We had some unusual traffic patterns this afternoon too. A huge surge, with a massive dip early evening and now traffic appears to be flowing at fairly typical levels. Weird. Ben Wiechman Network Engineer IV | Arvig Direct: 320.256.0184 Cell: 320.247.3224 Office: 320.256.7471 ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > I noticed a huge drop in MICE traffic, and was wondering if there was a > fiber cut somewhere, or some other underlying reason for the drop off. >

Nov. 10, 2016

Traffic Drop

by Jeremy Lumby

I noticed a huge drop in MICE traffic, and was wondering if there was a fiber cut somewhere, or some other underlying reason for the drop off.

Nov. 10, 2016

Re: UG21 Minutes and Attendance Notes

by Ben Wiechman

Were there any additional details regarding these issues? Do these issues begin to affect all traffic (some kind of queue exhaustion) or are they typically only experienced when passing traffic from the high bandwidth 100G links to the "low" bandwidth 1G links, or vice versa? Ben Wiechman Network Engineer IV | Arvig Direct: 320.256.0184 Cell: 320.247.3224 Office: 320.256.7471 ben.wiechman(a)arvig.com On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 6:52 PM, anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net < anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net> wrote: > I think Jay’s point was that our smaller members have 1G interfaces and > we’re talking about the next generation of switch having 100G interfaces. > I bet many of us had similar queue experiences with older platforms during > our early 10G migrations, and larger exchanges that are at the 100G level > may be seeing queue drops in even modern hardware. So we’ll want to > interrogate potential switch vendors and be mindful of the issue. Sorry > if that wasn’t clear. > > > > Cheers, > > anthony > > > > *Anthony Anderberg* > > Sr. Systems Analyst > > [image: NUtel_email_logo_1] > > 320-234-5239 > > anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net > > *www.nutelecom.net <http://www.nutelecom.net>* > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] *On Behalf > Of *Frank Bulk > *Sent:* Saturday, November 05, 2016 7:23 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] UG21 Minutes and Attendance Notes > > > > From the minutes: > > “Jay Hanke commented that other exchanges have reported their switch’s > internal queues overflowing when there was more than 2 orders of difference > in the traffic volume between the largest and smallest members.“ > > > > How do we go about measuring for that? > > > > Frank > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] *On Behalf > Of *anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net > *Sent:* Friday, November 04, 2016 1:33 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* [MICE-DISCUSS] UG21 Minutes and Attendance Notes > > > > My minutes and attendance log from our last UG meeting are attached. > > > > Cheers, > > anthony > > > > > > *Anthony Anderberg* > > Sr. Systems Analyst > > [image: NUtel_email_logo_1] > > 320-234-5239 > > anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net > > *www.nutelecom.net <http://www.nutelecom.net>* > > > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 >

Nov. 8, 2016

Re: UG21 Minutes and Attendance Notes

by anthonyanderberg＠nu-telecom.net

I think Jay's point was that our smaller members have 1G interfaces and we're talking about the next generation of switch having 100G interfaces. I bet many of us had similar queue experiences with older platforms during our early 10G migrations, and larger exchanges that are at the 100G level may be seeing queue drops in even modern hardware. So we'll want to interrogate potential switch vendors and be mindful of the issue. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Cheers, anthony Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst [NUtel_email_logo_1] 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net<mailto:anthonyanderberg@nu-telecom.net> www.nutelecom.net<http://www.nutelecom.net> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2016 7:23 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] UG21 Minutes and Attendance Notes >From the minutes: "Jay Hanke commented that other exchanges have reported their switch's internal queues overflowing when there was more than 2 orders of difference in the traffic volume between the largest and smallest members." How do we go about measuring for that? Frank From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 1:33 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] UG21 Minutes and Attendance Notes My minutes and attendance log from our last UG meeting are attached. Cheers, anthony Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst [NUtel_email_logo_1] 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net<mailto:anthonyanderberg@nu-telecom.net> www.nutelecom.net<http://www.nutelecom.net> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Nov. 8, 2016

Re: UG21 Minutes and Attendance Notes

by Frank Bulk

>From the minutes: "Jay Hanke commented that other exchanges have reported their switch's internal queues overflowing when there was more than 2 orders of difference in the traffic volume between the largest and smallest members." How do we go about measuring for that? Frank From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 1:33 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] UG21 Minutes and Attendance Notes My minutes and attendance log from our last UG meeting are attached. Cheers, anthony Anthony Anderberg Sr. Systems Analyst [NUtel_email_logo_1] 320-234-5239 anthonyanderberg(a)nu-telecom.net<mailto:anthonyanderberg@nu-telecom.net> www.nutelecom.net<http://www.nutelecom.net> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Nov. 6, 2016