- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Jeremy Lumby

So if I understand correctly from your "show virtual-chassis active-topology" below, all traffic from the 4500 to the 4200 is going via the 4550? And if that is the case, is there an easy way in the software that we could tell it to have return traffic from the 4200 to the 4500 also go via the 4550? This would allow us to easily test to see if it is the specific cable that runs from the 4200 to the 4500. -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Doug McIntyre Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:24 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:01:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > This leads me to wonder if there is possibly an issue with the stacking modules, or they are being saturated. ... Your understanding of the vc port speeds is correct. The VCP ports are built into the EX4200 and EX4500. The EX4550 has addon cards that do those functions. We can devote a port to VCP functionality instead, but it'll be a 10G limit instead of 32G The VCP ports are 32Gbps single direction in each port. So in the dual-ring the cables have are 32Gbps in each direction. You can see which ports are connected to what. (FPC0 is the EX4500, FPC1 is the EX4200, FPC2 is the EX4550). show virtual-chassis active-topology fpc0: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Destination ID Next-hop 1 2(vcp-1.32768) 1(vcp-0.32768) 2 2(vcp-1.32768) fpc1: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Destination ID Next-hop 0 0(vcp-0.32768) 2(vcp-1.32768) 2 2(vcp-1.32768) fpc2: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Destination ID Next-hop 0 0(vcp-255/2/0.32768) 1 1(vcp-255/2/3.32768) You can monitor each of the VCP ports on each of the members. I don't think we are close to saturation. request session member 1 (ie. rlogin to the EX4200 switch). monitor int vcp-0 Interface: vcp-0, Enabled, Link is Up Encapsulation: Virtual-Chassis-Interface, Speed: 32000mbps Traffic statistics: Current delta Input bytes: 25685118521 [12138] Output bytes: 27856843010 [13204] Input packets: 33377693 [16] Output packets: 33371644 [16] Error statistics: Input errors: 0 [0] Input drops: 0 [0] Input framing errors: 0 [0] Carrier transitions: 0 [0] Output errors: 0 [0] Output drops: 0 [0] vcp-1 on FPC1 is much less usage. Still zero error stats. All switches show zero error stats on any of the respective VCP port status. I suppose further troubleshooting could be to replace the VCP cables one by one coming out of the EX4200. Its too bad that we've got the quad fiber expansion in the EX4200, another test could be to put the dual 10G expansion in it, and make those VCP ports and make the VC fabric over those ports instead. But we've got 3 member ports lit on that quad 1G fiber. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Sept. 20, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Doug McIntyre

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:01:00PM -0500, Jeremy Lumby wrote: > This leads me to wonder if there is possibly an issue with the stacking modules, or they are being saturated. ... Your understanding of the vc port speeds is correct. The VCP ports are built into the EX4200 and EX4500. The EX4550 has addon cards that do those functions. We can devote a port to VCP functionality instead, but it'll be a 10G limit instead of 32G The VCP ports are 32Gbps single direction in each port. So in the dual-ring the cables have are 32Gbps in each direction. You can see which ports are connected to what. (FPC0 is the EX4500, FPC1 is the EX4200, FPC2 is the EX4550). show virtual-chassis active-topology fpc0: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Destination ID Next-hop 1 2(vcp-1.32768) 1(vcp-0.32768) 2 2(vcp-1.32768) fpc1: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Destination ID Next-hop 0 0(vcp-0.32768) 2(vcp-1.32768) 2 2(vcp-1.32768) fpc2: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Destination ID Next-hop 0 0(vcp-255/2/0.32768) 1 1(vcp-255/2/3.32768) You can monitor each of the VCP ports on each of the members. I don't think we are close to saturation. request session member 1 (ie. rlogin to the EX4200 switch). monitor int vcp-0 Interface: vcp-0, Enabled, Link is Up Encapsulation: Virtual-Chassis-Interface, Speed: 32000mbps Traffic statistics: Current delta Input bytes: 25685118521 [12138] Output bytes: 27856843010 [13204] Input packets: 33377693 [16] Output packets: 33371644 [16] Error statistics: Input errors: 0 [0] Input drops: 0 [0] Input framing errors: 0 [0] Carrier transitions: 0 [0] Output errors: 0 [0] Output drops: 0 [0] vcp-1 on FPC1 is much less usage. Still zero error stats. All switches show zero error stats on any of the respective VCP port status. I suppose further troubleshooting could be to replace the VCP cables one by one coming out of the EX4200. Its too bad that we've got the quad fiber expansion in the EX4200, another test could be to put the dual 10G expansion in it, and make those VCP ports and make the VC fabric over those ports instead. But we've got 3 member ports lit on that quad 1G fiber. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Sept. 20, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Jeremy Lumby

So this brings an issue I was watching for a couple days into a new light. I have a customer that is in Rochester MN on Charter's Fiber. They have 2 locations just a couple miles apart. I was monitoring their connections before we start to do their voice on the 22nd. I was surprised to see I was getting about 0.3% loss to both locations. The loss would happen at the same times, so I was tempted to blame Charter. When Matthew posted this today it reminded me that charter is on the 4500 and I am on the 4200 just like Matthew. So I started two different tests this afternoon, and I now have gathered results for last 6 hours, so I feel confident in the result that there is loss in traffic going from the 4200 to the 4500. Test 1 was to add a static route to one of my customer's Rochester locations, so that traffic from me to them went via HE, and then Charter. The location that I added the static route to has had no loss for the past 6 hours, and the location that I did not change has continued to show 0.3% loss. Obviously the return path still takes MICE, so I do not believe traffic from the 4500 to the 4200 is having a problem. Test 2 was to start a running ping to 9 different interface IP addresses on MICE. I choose 3 from each switch to avoid the possibility that one router was an outlier and overly deprioritizing ICMP. I let that run for almost 6 hours, and all interfaces on the 4200, and the 4550 showed 0 loss, and all three on the 4500 showed 0.2% loss. Looking deeper into the data, the loss that happened on the 4500 would often happen at the same time for all three addresses. This leads me to wonder if there is possibly an issue with the stacking modules, or they are being saturated. Let me preface this by saying I am not a Juniper guy, and I may be wrong, however my understanding is that the stacking modules are 128Gig which would seem like plenty, however it is my understanding that each module has 2 ports, and each one is 64G, and then that 64G is actually in + out, and therefore a single direction of one port could get maxed out at 32G. I remember when we added the 4550 I asked if there was a way to graph the traffic on them, and I believe we were not able to. While I do not think that they are saturated, I wonder if there are small bursts that get them near to capacity that are far too short to show up on the 5 minute averages. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Matthew Beckwell Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 4:24 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants Testing against the UW iperf servebbb, but no loss running the same 10M UDP test). So this (somewhat limited) test seems to show the current path from 4200 -> 4550 is okay. ~Matthew On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: UW Madison operates some IPerf servers you could try against too, see: https://kb.wisc.edu/uwsysnet/page.php?id=41947 They are on the 4550, it appears, so more data points to be gleaned there. To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 20, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Jason Hanke

I've looked at this and I support the SIX style of user fees for MICE. I also very much like that the remotes can charge their own rates. This should create options for members who prefer a different style of payment (perhaps monthly with little upfront?). The other shared resource is address space. We may want to consider a cap per ASN. Perhaps 2 without board/tech committee approval? In the propose scenario there would be no direct cost to the end user for these. I'd also selfishly support membership voting rights for remote switch operators. Jay On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I fully support this model as well. (see: https://www.seattleix.net/join) > > The large expenditures of new equipment are all member growth or new > member driven. Recouping a 1/nth portion of those switch upgrade costs per > member, plus some small overhead for the rest, seems to be a totally viable > model and has worked well for SIX. (plus donations). The rest of the > expense side of the house is pennies in comparison. > > For those that don’t think an IX can be driven, at least partially by > donations, maybe review this as well: https://www.seattleix.net/ > contributors > > This simplifies things on the backend too: > - one time payment vs monthly deposits via multiple methods that someone > on MICE board would need to manage for 60+ members > - members joining the IX have an easy sell internally of one time fee vs > MRC above and beyond a cross connect (always infinitely harder to justify) > > Solves the root issue of new members and more bandwidth (higher speed > ports) driving growth, and doesn’t penalize the little guys. > > Remote switches can charge their own rates, however, still need to pay the > main core switch port costs. (https://www.seattleix.net/rules) > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com > > > > > On Sep 19, 2016, at 2:35 PM, Justin Krejci <jkrejci(a)usinternet.com> > wrote: > > > > I am a fan of the SIX model of revenue: you pay to connect to the > exchange up front and bigger ports (ie 10-Gig) cost more than smaller (ie > 1-Gig). This fee applies to MICE core equipment only. Port costs on > extension switches are dictated by the respective extension switch > operators. > > > > As there are already many existing connected ports I would also be in > favor of retroactively charging each connected port based on their current > port type(s) in use at the time of the implementation of said fees. Already > connected organizations that want to take a bit of time to budget can make > arrangements with the board. Also, I would be in favor of implementing this > soon instead of waiting for the desired but elusive non-profit status > unless someone has knowledge of its actual pending completion. > -- 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

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Andrew Hoyos

I fully support this model as well. (see: https://www.seattleix.net/join) The large expenditures of new equipment are all member growth or new member driven. Recouping a 1/nth portion of those switch upgrade costs per member, plus some small overhead for the rest, seems to be a totally viable model and has worked well for SIX. (plus donations). The rest of the expense side of the house is pennies in comparison. For those that don’t think an IX can be driven, at least partially by donations, maybe review this as well: https://www.seattleix.net/contributors This simplifies things on the backend too: - one time payment vs monthly deposits via multiple methods that someone on MICE board would need to manage for 60+ members - members joining the IX have an easy sell internally of one time fee vs MRC above and beyond a cross connect (always infinitely harder to justify) Solves the root issue of new members and more bandwidth (higher speed ports) driving growth, and doesn’t penalize the little guys. Remote switches can charge their own rates, however, still need to pay the main core switch port costs. (https://www.seattleix.net/rules) -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Sep 19, 2016, at 2:35 PM, Justin Krejci <jkrejci(a)usinternet.com> wrote: > > I am a fan of the SIX model of revenue: you pay to connect to the exchange up front and bigger ports (ie 10-Gig) cost more than smaller (ie 1-Gig). This fee applies to MICE core equipment only. Port costs on extension switches are dictated by the respective extension switch operators. > > As there are already many existing connected ports I would also be in favor of retroactively charging each connected port based on their current port type(s) in use at the time of the implementation of said fees. Already connected organizations that want to take a bit of time to budget can make arrangements with the board. Also, I would be in favor of implementing this soon instead of waiting for the desired but elusive non-profit status unless someone has knowledge of its actual pending completion.

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Matthew Beckwell

Testing against the UW iperf servers seems to be mostly clean. (Occasionally, I get one out-of-order, but no loss running the same 10M UDP test). So this (somewhat limited) test seems to show the current path from 4200 -> 4550 is okay. ~Matthew On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > UW Madison operates some IPerf servers you could try against too, see: > https://kb.wisc.edu/uwsysnet/page.php?id=41947 > They are on the 4550, it appears, so more data points to be gleaned there. > >

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Andrew Hoyos

> On Sep 19, 2016, at 2:19 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 02:03:41PM -0500, Andrew Hoyos wrote: >> What medium is the VC built on and physical topology? Just VC cables on the rear ringed through all 3? > > Yes, VC cabling in a ring, and using the VCP modules and cabling on the EX4550. What’s the actual topology though? 4500 -> 4200 -> 4550 -> back to 4500? >> Specific to any single 4500 destination or is it doing it to both the 4500 and the 4550? > > He wasn't aware of the EX4550, there aren't many ports lit there yet, > he has just been testing different ports on the the EX4500. UW Madison operates some IPerf servers you could try against too, see: https://kb.wisc.edu/uwsysnet/page.php?id=41947 They are on the 4550, it appears, so more data points to be gleaned there. >> Check ‘show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface <src int> destination-interface <dest int>’. Common VC port in the mix to any of the reported loss paths? > > I think in general, the VC ports run Active/Passive, so only one is > "active" at a time going out of a box without load balancing, so only > one (ie. vcp-1) typically shows up for all paths. Kinda, there is a SPF calculation that happens based on src/dst interfaces. It matters which PFE of the switch the port is on (1 hop != switch, it’s actually each PFE hop). Depending on the topology here, things could be going a variety of ways. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Andrew Hoyos

On Sep 19, 2016, at 3:29 PM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)aitech.net> wrote: > > This is certainly interesting....I'm not sure what's special about xe-0/0/14 vs ae5. > Some kind of buffer or queue difference? IIRC on the 4500, there is a PFE mapped to ports 0-19 and another PFE handling 20-39, with 200gbps between. AE5 appears to be built (from the website) out of xe-0/0/29,xe-0/0/38,xe-2/0/15. How that hashing played out for your test and which link it actually took, who knows. Either way, could be a 4500 only thing, or PFE cross traffic related. Seems like it might be a good idea to simplify that topology if possible (given the mixed mode behavior already). -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Jeremy Lumby

One interesting thing that might be playing into it is that ae5 is split across both the 4500, and the 4550. I wonder if the issue is only when traffic goes from the 4200 to the 4500, and not the 4200 to the 4550. From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Matthew Beckwell Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 3:30 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants 10M UDP testing to Steve's network at Paul Bunyan (egress ae5), doesn't appear to have any loss. The same 10M UDP test to US Internet, egress xe-0/0/14 shows about 3-5% loss. Again, same 10M UDP test to the same US Internet destination IP forced out another transit provider shows 0 loss. This is certainly interesting....I'm not sure what's special about xe-0/0/14 vs ae5. Some kind of buffer or queue difference? ~Matthew On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: On 09/19/2016 01:49 PM, Matthew Beckwell wrote: As to whether there's loss to one of the "remote" switches, I'm not sure.... If one of the Neutral Path/Mankato Networks/ CNS connected participants would be up for running iperf for a little while, we could find out fairly quickly. We've opened up our iperf3 server on 209.191.196.90 for a few hours. To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Matthew Beckwell

10M UDP testing to Steve's network at Paul Bunyan (egress ae5), doesn't appear to have any loss. The same 10M UDP test to US Internet, egress xe-0/0/14 shows about 3-5% loss. Again, same 10M UDP test to the same US Internet destination IP forced out another transit provider shows 0 loss. This is certainly interesting....I'm not sure what's special about xe-0/0/14 vs ae5. Some kind of buffer or queue difference? ~Matthew On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > On 09/19/2016 01:49 PM, Matthew Beckwell wrote: > > > As to whether there's loss to one of the "remote" switches, I'm not > sure.... > If one of the Neutral Path/Mankato Networks/ CNS connected participants > would be up for running iperf for a little while, we could find out fairly > quickly. > > > We've opened up our iperf3 server on 209.191.196.90 for a few hours. >

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Justin Krejci

I am a fan of the SIX model of revenue: you pay to connect to the exchange up front and bigger ports (ie 10-Gig) cost more than smaller (ie 1-Gig). This fee applies to MICE core equipment only. Port costs on extension switches are dictated by the respective extension switch operators. As there are already many existing connected ports I would also be in favor of retroactively charging each connected port based on their current port type(s) in use at the time of the implementation of said fees. Already connected organizations that want to take a bit of time to budget can make arrangements with the board. Also, I would be in favor of implementing this soon instead of waiting for the desired but elusive non-profit status unless someone has knowledge of its actual pending completion. I feel this method alleviates the problem of non-payment induced disconnects, switch port reservations, tracking payments, etc. I don't know the history of other exchanges with regards to disconnecting organizations, freeing up port and IP number resources, but clearly sometimes companies go under or otherwise have a change in strategy and no longer desire to be connected yet do not formally announce they are disconnecting. So to that end, after some period of time (X months) of being in an unreachable state via their IXP IP addresses, a disconnect is implemented unless said organization otherwise scheduled or coordinated with MICE to be offline for an extended period of time. I am guessing there is some historical data available from other exchanges or other best practices that could be used to guide us on how to do this. With regards to gaining membership/voting rights I like the notion of requiring an active port connection to the exchange (core or extension) with an ASN and reachable exchange assigned IP address(es). An alternate method of gaining membership/voting rights would be from serving on the board of the exchange which would not require one to be an already connected organization of the exchange. Summary of member voting eligibility Provides Eligibility to Vote: * Elected board members. Board members may or may not represent a connected organization, I assume the bylaws cover the 1-vote max per organization but that is implied here * Connected organizations with ASN and at least one reachable exchange assigned IP number Does Not Provide Eligibility to Vote: * Sponsors, 3rd parties, etc (eg Cologix, operators of extension switches) * Organizations exclusively using ancillary exchange services (eg pvlans) ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Steve Howard [showard(a)PAULBUNYAN.NET] Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 7:22 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model I'm a little "late to the party" for this discussion, but I'd like to add a few of my thoughts: First off, I'd like to thank Dave for coming up with great ideas and points for discussion. MICE is a cooperative (not a charity). As a cooperative, we need to treat everybody equally. I feel that everybody should have to pay membership dues at some level, perhaps an amount based upon port size. If we fail to require the payment of dues, we will have different classes of users and the potential for discontent as some people don't pay their fair share. Like Martin said, "Classes create inequities". If people don't pay, they need to be disconnected (after a reasonable grace period). The dollar amounts due will likely be very small, the exchange has gotten by without any payments required for several years. I don't think that the fees that would need to be charged would be anything that an organization connecting to the exchange cannot absorb. If they can't handle ~$9/month (using Dave's example numbers), they won't be around long in this industry. I agree with Richard Laager's points about enforcement. We need to enforce whatever policy is decided. I don't like any scenario where the board might have the option to waive fees. That will create the feeling of the "good 'ol boy" system. I also think that all newly connected members should get their initial connect period free, primarily as a sales tool. I'd like to give new members a chance to "try before you buy" to see if it works for them. Perhaps we bill annually and they don't pay until the next billing cycle starts (or some variation thereof)? Until they pay, they should be subject to their port being assigned to somebody else, not be official members, and not able to vote. How do we handle members that are connected to remote switches? Is the switch owner the member? The downstream users? Both? Who pays the port charges? Only the switch owner? Steve On 09/08/2016 01:05 PM, David Farmer wrote: I'm not a candidate and will not be a candidate for the Board. However, I propose the following Membership and Sponsorship Model, including both Membership Dues and Sponsorship levels for MICE Members and Non-Member Sponsors. The dollar values are just my suggestions, I think they should work but they are primarily intended to illustrate the model. With this Model, any network may connect to the Exchange, but all networks participating in governance, known as Members, will have some minimal skin-in-the-game. Further, the Model implies Networks with 10G or larger ports probably should participate at a more significant level, but this is not a requirement for access to 10G or larger ports or even to participate in governance. The Friends of MICE Sponsorship level is intended to be accessible to anyone interested, including individual users of the Internet. My proposal; As an Open Internet Exchange any network with a uniquely registered Autonomous System Number (ASN) may connect to MICE. However, Non-Member networks are provided ports on the Exchange on an as-available basis only and Non-Members do not participate in the governance of the Exchange or the MICE Organization, but may observe and participate in its discussions. Networks connected to the Exchange, or Data Centers hosting an Exchange switch, may become Members and participate in the governance of the Exchange and the MICE Organization by paying Membership Dues at either level listed below. Members are provided prefered access to 1G Exchange ports, and are provided access to 10G or larger Exchange ports on an as-available basis. Sustaining or higher Members are committed to sustaining and growing the Exchange by electing to pay Sustaining Membership Dues and/or paying Basic Membership Dues and providing other Sponsorship to the Exchange of a value totaling $1000 or more. In recognition to this additional commitment, Sustaining or higher Members are provided prefered access to 10G or larger Exchange ports. Basic Membership Dues - $100 Sustaining Membership Dues - $1000 (Dues are paid in cash or cash equivalents only, and may not be provided through in-kind services or equipment) Beyond Dues from Members, MICE accepts Sponsorship both from Members and Non-Members Sponsors as cash, cash equivalents, in-kind services or equipment. Sponsorship is recognized at the following escalating levels based on the total value provided annually. Friends of MICE - Sponsorship of $50 ore more annually Sustaining Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $1,000 or more annually Silver Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $2,500 or more annually Gold Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $5,000 or more annually Platinum Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $10,000 or more annually Sponsorship of $20,000 or more are recognized with multiple years at the Platinum level. Friends of MICE are list on a page on the MICE website. Sustaining or higher Members are annotated as such in their listings on the MICE website. All Sustaining or higher Members and Sponsors are listed on the MICE website, with higher levels receiving more prominent placement. Silver or higher Members and Sponsors are recognized in MICE marketing materials, with higher levels receiving more prominent placement. Thanks -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu<mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu> Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<tel:612-626-0815> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<tel:612-812-9952> =============================================== ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Matthew Beckwell

Thanks Steve, I haven't done much with iperf3-- it looks like they took away the dual-test option, so I'm a little blind. Are you able to see loss on the iperf3 server side from 199.168.228.123 ? ~Matthew On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > We've opened up our iperf3 server on 209.191.196.90 for a few hours. > > > ------------------------------ > > >

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Doug McIntyre

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 02:03:41PM -0500, Andrew Hoyos wrote: > What medium is the VC built on and physical topology? Just VC cables on the rear ringed through all 3? Yes, VC cabling in a ring, and using the VCP modules and cabling on the EX4550. > Specific to any single 4500 destination or is it doing it to both the 4500 and the 4550? He wasn't aware of the EX4550, there aren't many ports lit there yet, he has just been testing different ports on the the EX4500. > Check ‘show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface <src int> destination-interface <dest int>’. Common VC port in the mix to any of the reported loss paths? I think in general, the VC ports run Active/Passive, so only one is "active" at a time going out of a box without load balancing, so only one (ie. vcp-1) typically shows up for all paths. But either way, the virtual-chassis stats show zero errors, all the vcp-? ports show zero errors or drops. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Steve Howard

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Andrew Hoyos

> On Sep 19, 2016, at 1:56 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)IPHOUSE.NET> wrote: > > Yes, there is a VC stack of > > EX4200 > EX4500 > EX4550 What medium is the VC built on and physical topology? Just VC cables on the rear ringed through all 3? Specific to any single 4500 destination or is it doing it to both the 4500 and the 4550? Check ‘show virtual-chassis vc-path source-interface <src int> destination-interface <dest int>’. Common VC port in the mix to any of the reported loss paths? -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Doug McIntyre

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:49:52PM -0500, Matthew Beckwell wrote: > I'm seeing the loss on traffic going from 4200 to 4500. > (Whether it's egress of the 4200 or 4500 ingress, i'm not sure). > > I'm not 100% sure I know what the infrastructure looks like now-- are there > two 4500's? Yes, there is a VC stack of EX4200 EX4500 EX4550 To summarize what Matthew has told me. EX4200 -> EX4200 no UDP packet loss EX4200 -> EX4500 Small ammount of UDP packet loss EX4500 -> EX4200 No detected UDP packet loss EX4500 -> EX4500 no UDP packet loss -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Levi Pederson

Mathew, We have a server up in 511 and would be interested in looking into assisting however we can. We'll most likely be up in 511 soon. I can keep you informed. Thank you, *Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)aitech.net> wrote: > Hi Levi, > I'm seeing the loss on traffic going from 4200 to 4500. > (Whether it's egress of the 4200 or 4500 ingress, i'm not sure). > > I'm not 100% sure I know what the infrastructure looks like now-- are > there two 4500's? > > As to whether there's loss to one of the "remote" switches, I'm not > sure.... > If one of the Neutral Path/Mankato Networks/ CNS connected participants > would be up for running iperf for a little while, we could find out fairly > quickly. > > ~Matthew > > *Matthew Beckwell* - V.P. - Network Operations > Advanced Integrated Technologies > Office: + > *1.952.829.5511 <1.952.829.5511> x204*E-Mail: matthewb(a)aitech.net > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Levi Pederson < > levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net> wrote: > >> Mathew, >> >> Is the dropped traffic crossing the Exchange from the 4200 to one of the >> other switches or is it random? >> >> Thank you, >> >> >> *Levi Pederson* >> Mankato Networks LLC >> cell | 612.481.0769 >> work | 612.787.7392 >> levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)aitech.net> >> wrote: >> >>> Greetings, >>> I wanted to see if anyone here has any thoughts on a small amount (<1%) >>> of packet loss I've been trying to chase down, specific to the MICE EX4200 >>> switch. >>> >>> Aitech/AS13746 has a 1G copper port on the EX4200 switch. It seems >>> that we're seeing a small amount of outbound packet loss (1G to 10G) >>> going participants outside of the EX4200 switch. >>> >>> I might expect this going from 10G to 1G (inbound for us), but it's the >>> opposite where we see the problem: 1G to 10G participants. >>> >>> Doug at ipHouse (ge-1/0/3 on the EX4200) fired up iperf and we did some >>> testing. They're in the same situation: Loss leaving the EX4200. >>> Specifically, I was testing over to US Internet (xe-0/0/14) but seeing it >>> via Onvoy as well. >>> >>> The iperf test I was running was UDP, bandwidth of 69000, and packet >>> size of 172, running in both directions. Essentially--emulating a G.711 >>> SIP call (which is how I noticed the loss). I tested with no loss in both >>> directions within the EX4200. >>> >>> Doug mentioned: >>> >>> >I pulled the VC chassis stats, but it has nothing for drops or >>> re-transmits for it. >>> >>> Maybe some of our Juniper-centric members have suggestions? It's quite >>> possible it's always been like this-- the loss is small enough that's >>> managed to evade monitoring. I suspect everyone on the EX4200 is affected. >>> >>> ~Matthew >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> 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 >

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Matthew Beckwell

Hi Levi, I'm seeing the loss on traffic going from 4200 to 4500. (Whether it's egress of the 4200 or 4500 ingress, i'm not sure). I'm not 100% sure I know what the infrastructure looks like now-- are there two 4500's? As to whether there's loss to one of the "remote" switches, I'm not sure.... If one of the Neutral Path/Mankato Networks/ CNS connected participants would be up for running iperf for a little while, we could find out fairly quickly. ~Matthew *Matthew Beckwell* - V.P. - Network Operations Advanced Integrated Technologies Office: + *1.952.829.5511 x204*E-Mail: matthewb(a)aitech.net On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Levi Pederson < levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net> wrote: > Mathew, > > Is the dropped traffic crossing the Exchange from the 4200 to one of the > other switches or is it random? > > Thank you, > > > *Levi Pederson* > Mankato Networks LLC > cell | 612.481.0769 > work | 612.787.7392 > levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net > > > On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)aitech.net> > wrote: > >> Greetings, >> I wanted to see if anyone here has any thoughts on a small amount (<1%) >> of packet loss I've been trying to chase down, specific to the MICE EX4200 >> switch. >> >> Aitech/AS13746 has a 1G copper port on the EX4200 switch. It seems that >> we're seeing a small amount of outbound packet loss (1G to 10G) going >> participants outside of the EX4200 switch. >> >> I might expect this going from 10G to 1G (inbound for us), but it's the >> opposite where we see the problem: 1G to 10G participants. >> >> Doug at ipHouse (ge-1/0/3 on the EX4200) fired up iperf and we did some >> testing. They're in the same situation: Loss leaving the EX4200. >> Specifically, I was testing over to US Internet (xe-0/0/14) but seeing it >> via Onvoy as well. >> >> The iperf test I was running was UDP, bandwidth of 69000, and packet size >> of 172, running in both directions. Essentially--emulating a G.711 SIP >> call (which is how I noticed the loss). I tested with no loss in both >> directions within the EX4200. >> >> Doug mentioned: >> >> >I pulled the VC chassis stats, but it has nothing for drops or >> re-transmits for it. >> >> Maybe some of our Juniper-centric members have suggestions? It's quite >> possible it's always been like this-- the loss is small enough that's >> managed to evade monitoring. I suspect everyone on the EX4200 is affected. >> >> ~Matthew >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> 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 >

Sept. 19, 2016

Re: EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Levi Pederson

Mathew, Is the dropped traffic crossing the Exchange from the 4200 to one of the other switches or is it random? Thank you, *Levi Pederson* Mankato Networks LLC cell | 612.481.0769 work | 612.787.7392 levipederson(a)mankatonetworks.net On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)aitech.net> wrote: > Greetings, > I wanted to see if anyone here has any thoughts on a small amount (<1%) of > packet loss I've been trying to chase down, specific to the MICE EX4200 > switch. > > Aitech/AS13746 has a 1G copper port on the EX4200 switch. It seems that > we're seeing a small amount of outbound packet loss (1G to 10G) going > participants outside of the EX4200 switch. > > I might expect this going from 10G to 1G (inbound for us), but it's the > opposite where we see the problem: 1G to 10G participants. > > Doug at ipHouse (ge-1/0/3 on the EX4200) fired up iperf and we did some > testing. They're in the same situation: Loss leaving the EX4200. > Specifically, I was testing over to US Internet (xe-0/0/14) but seeing it > via Onvoy as well. > > The iperf test I was running was UDP, bandwidth of 69000, and packet size > of 172, running in both directions. Essentially--emulating a G.711 SIP > call (which is how I noticed the loss). I tested with no loss in both > directions within the EX4200. > > Doug mentioned: > > >I pulled the VC chassis stats, but it has nothing for drops or > re-transmits for it. > > Maybe some of our Juniper-centric members have suggestions? It's quite > possible it's always been like this-- the loss is small enough that's > managed to evade monitoring. I suspect everyone on the EX4200 is affected. > > ~Matthew > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Sept. 19, 2016

EX4200 (1G Switch) Packet Loss -> 10G Participants

by Matthew Beckwell

Greetings, I wanted to see if anyone here has any thoughts on a small amount (<1%) of packet loss I've been trying to chase down, specific to the MICE EX4200 switch. Aitech/AS13746 has a 1G copper port on the EX4200 switch. It seems that we're seeing a small amount of outbound packet loss (1G to 10G) going participants outside of the EX4200 switch. I might expect this going from 10G to 1G (inbound for us), but it's the opposite where we see the problem: 1G to 10G participants. Doug at ipHouse (ge-1/0/3 on the EX4200) fired up iperf and we did some testing. They're in the same situation: Loss leaving the EX4200. Specifically, I was testing over to US Internet (xe-0/0/14) but seeing it via Onvoy as well. The iperf test I was running was UDP, bandwidth of 69000, and packet size of 172, running in both directions. Essentially--emulating a G.711 SIP call (which is how I noticed the loss). I tested with no loss in both directions within the EX4200. Doug mentioned: >I pulled the VC chassis stats, but it has nothing for drops or re-transmits for it. Maybe some of our Juniper-centric members have suggestions? It's quite possible it's always been like this-- the loss is small enough that's managed to evade monitoring. I suspect everyone on the EX4200 is affected. ~Matthew

Sept. 19, 2016

FW: How do I start an Internet Exchange Point?

by Michael Hemphill

Hello MICE people, I saw this post on LinkedIn today & thought it may offer some more help and/or confusion to the current discussions. Mike Mike Hemphill ColoConnect 612-812-5242 mikeh(a)ColoConnect.net<mailto:mikeh@ColoConnect.net> [Kurt-Erik "Kurtis" Lindqvist]<https://www.linkedin.com/in/klindqvist>Kurt-Erik "Kurtis" Lindqvist<https://www.linkedin.com/in/klindqvist>CMO at LINX ( The London Internet Exchange) How do I start an Internet Exchange Point? September 17, 2016 • 13 Likes • 3 Comments I have been involved in helping a lot of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) get of the ground and I have also been to several countries and regions to help IXPs to prosper and sometimes even to explain to the IXP, the members and the regulators why things have failed. I have helped IXPs in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and even North America. In addition to this I have together with Philip Smith and others thought numerous classes for APRICOT<http://www.apricot.net/>s, MENOG<http://www.menog.org/>s, ISOC<http://www.isoc.org/>, AfPIF<http://www.internetsociety.org/events/afpif> and others on how routing, IXPs and peering work. Because of this involvement I very often get asked advice by people wanting to establish an IXP or even newly formed IXPs. At LINX we are always very supportive of new IXPs being formed, and we try and contribute as much as we can. For those wanting to start an IXP I thought I would write up some comments that observations I have made over the years and post it here. There are already a large number of resources for new IXPs, and I will also list some of these considerations below. Establishing the IXP The hard part with establishing an IXP is not really the technical part, but building up a community and a community with trust with that. Also, an IXP needs to be sustainable beyond the establishment phase, i.e. have enough funds to operate, and in the future upgrade the equipment they need as technology develops and traffic grows. Most IXPs ensure this by setting up a mutual or membership association so that the users of the IXP have equal say in the operation of the IXP. This is by far the most successful model of IXPs today. The members pay a fee based on their port size to the association, so one fee for a 1GE port and one for a 10GE port. Not based on the actual traffic, but the port speed. The membership all have one vote each in the running of the organisation and normally appoints a board for the day to day operation of the IXP. Secondly, new IXPs tend to believe it is a good idea to offer free ports to large content networks in order to attract other members. At first glance this might seem like a good idea, but you will quickly find yourself squeezed between the content networks and the broadband operators that then also want their ports for free. Generally it is better to charge everyone equally and threat everyone equally. It might make it slightly harder for the IXP to get off the ground but it certainly makes running the IXP easier in the long run. Most of the large content owners are also quite supportive of new IXPs being formed in locations or regions where no IXP exists. Thirdly, what is very important is to ensure that the IXP does not in any way interfere with the peering arrangements across the IXP. If the members want to for example sell transit to each other across the IXP, that is fine. If someone only want to peer with a subset of the members, that is also fine. Selecting the location for your IXP Besides creating the community in order to support the IXP, the other important factor for establishing a successful IXP is the location. Successful IXPs needs to be accessible for everyone so a neutral datacenter, where any fibre infrastructure can be build in. These locations can be hard to find, but are very critical for the success. The wider the choice of fibre providers (or wlan for that matter in some parts of the world) and choice of carriers that are available, the better. Datacenters owned by current or former incumbents are not good choices as they generally tend to be very restrictive in what choice of infrastructure providers they offer. Besides easy infrastructure access, the datacenter also needs to provide a stable power feed, or you need to ensure you have UPSes and perhaps even generators (depending on ambition, stability of power grid and if the datacenter provides generator power). Also make sure there is room to grow the IXP. You might only two racks to start with, but if you are successful you might need more and moving the IXP is always painful. What type of switch do I need? There is an excellent presentation<http://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/30-1000-dollar-exchange-ripe71.pdf> by Remco van Mook that covers many of the same topics as this post, and that also points out that ~50% of IXPs carry less than 20Gbps of traffic. As a new start-up IXP you will most certainly carry less than 20Gbps. What you need is a switch that will support 1GE and 10GE ports, preferably via SFPs, not an expensive and large switch with massive amount of features (although the vendors will try and sell you one). Instead, make sure you get a switch that you can manage and that you can monitor. These are the most important components of an IXP switch. Co-location of services For the benefit of the membership of your IXP as well as the local Internet community, you should co-locate some critical shared resources with the IXP. The most important ones are * The local ccTLD slave service (i.e .uk, .fr, .sg, .bd etc). If the ccTLD registry is supportive of the IXP, the contact them and ask if they are willing to locate one of their unicast slaves behind your IXP router. Never connect the DNS slaves directly to IXP L2 domain. * It is likely that the ccTLD registry also uses an anycast provider for their slave service. In that case it might be worth contacting that DNS anycast provider and ask them to connect to the IXP. You should in any cast contact the DNS anycast providers as they are more than happy to peer at many of the IXPs. Many of these also operate or provide service to one the DNS root-servers. These are a critical part of the internet infrastructure and having one co-located with your IXP will provide a lot of value to your local Internet community. PCH<http://www.pch.net/>, Verisign<http://www.verisign.com/> and Netnod<http://www.netnod.se/> are some of the DNS Anycast providers that locate nodes around the world. * Route-servers are also important to offer to your members, especially as you start to grow. The most stable software for route-servers today is BIRD<http://bird.network.cz/>. Providing two route-servers also adds redundancy as if one fails, the peering sessions will go down. Last, some IXPs offer NTP services as part of the IXP to their community. This is a very good service, and something that the community should make use of. However, for a new start-up IXP, NTP services is quite expensive to provide and definitely not needed at the first stage. Managing my IXP and members The guys over at INEX<http://www.inex.ie/> has created an amazing tool called The IXP Manager<http://www.inex.ie/ixp/index/about> that provides you all the software you need to mange your IXP and the tools for your members. This is really an amazing resource that you should use for setting up the IXP! How do I know if my IXP is a success? What makes an IXP successful varies very much from each individual case. A small land-locked country where all ISPs or Internet Operators are forced to use Satellite capacity for Internet access will benefit enormously from an IXP no matter how little traffic that is exchanged, as each bit is a huge saving! Value of peering is always in the eye of the beholder. Access to one single route or Internet prefix can be extremely valuable to one ISP, while another might need large traffic volumes before it creates value to them. In the end a successful IXP is defined by the membership. If there is a community that uses and continuous to see benefit from the IXP they will continue to support it. By being stable and sustainable the IXP is successful! Other resources IXP Associations * IX-F<http://www.ix-f.net/> * Euro-IX<http://www.euro-ix.net/> * APIX<http://apix.asia/> * LACIX<http://www.lac-ix.net/> * AF-IX<http://www.af-ix.net/> The IXP toolkit<http://www.ixptoolkit.org/> is a collection of resources for IXPs. The Euro-IX movie<http://youtu.be/QuBde4Sn3f0> is a great resource for explaining in a non-technical manner how an IXP works and what it does. You are always welcome to contact me for questions and advice! Written by [Kurt-Erik "Kurtis" Lindqvist]<https://www.linkedin.com/in/klindqvist>Kurt-Erik "Kurtis" Lindqvist<https://www.linkedin.com/in/klindqvist>CMO at LINX ( The London Internet Exchange) 3 comments [ ] 2h [https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrink_100_100/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAltAAAAJDMwNWY0…]<https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivanbev> Ivan Beveridge<https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivanbev> Seeking network/systems opportunities in… Typo correction: Establishing the IXP .... "Generally it is better to charge everyone equally and threat everyone equally" - threat -> treat LikeReply 2h [https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrink_100_100/p/2/000/03f/0cb/2aae6f1.jpg]<https://www.linkedin.com/in/muhammad-aslam-1868a15> Muhammad Aslam<https://www.linkedin.com/in/muhammad-aslam-1868a15> Chief Operating Officer at ADRAS Great article - mostly the technical would agree with the points mentioned in the article including the Remco van Mook presentation in terms of the technical and costing matrix. The biggest dilemma with the developing economies would be that their consulting partner being ITU that provides different approach towards the setup of IXP , so the question would be how to convin… See more LikeReply 1 1h [https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrink_100_100/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAltAAAAJDMwNWY0…]<https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivanbev> Ivan Beveridge<https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivanbev> Seeking network/systems opportunities in… You say "ITU that provides different approach towards the setup of IXP". Can you elaborate? What is their approach? LikeReply 1h [https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrink_100_100/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAltAAAAJDMwNWY0…]<https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivanbev> Ivan Beveridge<https://www.linkedin.com/in/ivanbev> Seeking network/systems opportunities in… Good article, highlighting important topics and linking to additional resources. I guess the particularly tricky part comes when wishing to setup in areas where there are few/no neutral colocation centres. I suspect such instances need to be treated on a case-by-case basis; is this what you/people (eg Bill, Gaurab, etc) have found?

Sept. 17, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Steve Howard

Sept. 16, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by DeLong, Owen

I would like to humbly suggest that we first focus the discussion on the revenue model we want to achieve (flat fee vs. voluntary differentiations vs. differentiated services). Once we come to consensus on that, it will be much easier to look at all the corner cases for making sure that each organization can provide money in a way that meets both our and their accounting needs. Owen > On Sep 9, 2016, at 10:09 , Ben Franske <ben.lists(a)FRANSKE.COM> wrote: > > On 9/9/2016 1:28 AM, Richard Laager wrote: >> >> Ironically, I don't think this even works for the University of >> Minnesota. I believe it was your position that you needed an invoice, as >> "the University doesn't give donations; it accepts them". > > I was actually going to bring this up, but it wasn't the U of M that had this issue, it was Wisconsin/BadgerNet. I believe they stated that even a "membership" might be problematic, but port fees could definitely be paid. > > -Ben > > Ben Franske > Inver Hills Community College (MICE via MNSCU via UMN)

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Ben Franske

On 9/9/2016 1:28 AM, Richard Laager wrote: > > Ironically, I don't think this even works for the University of > Minnesota. I believe it was your position that you needed an invoice, as > "the University doesn't give donations; it accepts them". I was actually going to bring this up, but it wasn't the U of M that had this issue, it was Wisconsin/BadgerNet. I believe they stated that even a "membership" might be problematic, but port fees could definitely be paid. -Ben Ben Franske Inver Hills Community College (MICE via MNSCU via UMN)

Sept. 9, 2016

Wikstrom Telephone MICE Port Move

by Jason Hanke

Wikstrom Telephone is moving their connection from the Mankato Networks Remote Switch to the Main Switch The new port will be xe-2/0/6 on the main stack. IP information will remain the same. 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

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Richard Laager Board Seat

by Richard Laager

* This election is important for the future of MICE. Please consider your choices carefully, and please make sure to vote. If you cannot attend the meeting, I encourage you to designate a proxy, which must be done in advance. According to the bylaws, you can do this by email to the Chief Manager. I believe that is Shaun, but if you want to be safe and nobody confirms who holds that role, send your proxy to Shaun, Jay, and Reid. Obviously, you should inform the proxy, too. ** If you wish to vote for me, but cannot attend the meeting, you can designate Mike Johnston as your proxy. I assume Owen will also provide proxy instructions. At the time of the MICE UG, I will be in San Francisco at the OpenZFS Developer Summit. I may be able to attend the MICE UG remotely, but I cannot commit to that. I definitely will not be able to attend in person. At the last UG when we were scheduling this one, it seemed like there were not a lot of dates that worked for the board, especially Reid. I felt it was better to optimize for the current board, so I did not ask for a date change. I am a long-time MICE supporter. I have attended, in person, most of the UG meetings since I learned of MICE, despite the distance and sometimes the weather. I have also made a point of involving my co-workers. I contribute in other ways, including mailing list discussions, handling the routine website updates, and talking up MICE both privately and publicly (e.g. NANOG 65 Peering Personals). I secured a donation from my employer for MICE's Juniper service contract. Overall, I think MICE is headed in the right direction. My top priority is, of course, that we complete the non-profit filing in a timely fashion. Immediately after that, we need to address financial sustainability. Along the way, there are a couple items related to the participant versus member distinction: * I would like to formalize the procedure for new connections. I am not envisioning big changes. We simply need to document the procedure and be explicit about the various states and steps. Specifically, we need to implement (as the board previously agreed) a process of participants requesting membership. * In looking at the bylaws, we may need to make a small fix to address non-member participants (e.g. University of Wisconsin System). The current bylaws specify in 1.16(a) that a membership resignation results in a port disconnection. One might be able to play games by suggesting that they never accepted membership and thus did not resign, but this is hole that needs to be fixed anyway. > PVLAN service. What are your opinions on if MICE should offer it or not. I do not think we should add features speculatively. If two or more participants have concrete plans to actually use a PVLAN in short order, I have no problem with it. As a volunteer-run exchange, the participants involved bear the responsibility to engineer and implement the solution, or convince someone to do it for them. If implemented on the main switches, remote switch operators should not be compelled to (nor prohibited from) participating in PVLAN service. > Do you see any major conflicts between your other affiliations/obligations and MICE? I am interested both from the standpoint of availability, as well as from the professional interest point of view. I am a board member (immediate past president) of the Thief River Falls Rotary Club. I am a board member of Instant Messaging Freedom, the non-profit foundation which assists Adium and Pidgin. I am a developer of Pidgin. I am a member of the ZFS on Linux team. I maintain a couple quasi-abandoned open source projects: docsis & pks. I maintain gbonds's Debian packaging. I expect no professional conflicts with any of these. Time conflicts are always a concern. None of these roles are huge time commitments; the amount of time I spend on them is flexible. I have the full support of my employer for participating in MICE, so that comes out of work time. The biggest potential for conflict is obviously my employment at Wikstrom Telephone Company, a MICE member and participant. (I also vote at ARIN on their behalf.) This is the same situation as the other board members and candidates. I see no problem navigating this through disclosure and, if necessary, recusal. > Do you see the finical current model as sustainable for MICE? I am skeptical that MICE can function indefinitely on ad-hoc donations. > What changes would you suggest on the business side? Long-time members may recall I was involved in previous planning for this. Here is my current plan: Expenses First, we need to define what we need on the expense side. I believe everyone agrees we need operating funds to pay the year's bills (ARIN fees, etc.). My position is that we can accept the discounted Cologix rates as a given. That is subject to change at the expiration of our contract, of course, but that would be similar with a non-discounted contract. Opinions on the capital expenses are more varied, but I think we have a broad consensus that we will need new switches over time. My position is that, moving forward, MICE needs to be proactive, not reactive, in planning for capital expenditures. There are three reasons we need new switches: 1) Hardware failures 2) Bandwidth growth 3) New members All of these rely on estimates. Reasonable people can disagree, so we can adjust based on member consensus. The important thing is that we not lose the budget forest for the trees. We need to get started with something, and we can adjust over time. For #1, let's assume a switch needs to be replaced, on average, every 10 years. For #2, let's assume 50% annualized growth. This is the "Nielsen's Law" number. That rate is higher than what I am seeing in reports of actual national averages, but lower than my employers' actual bandwidth growth. A 50% annualized growth rate means an order of magnitude port speed increase occurs every 5 to 6 years. When it comes to planning for new switches, the particular port speed is something which will be determined at the time of purchase. That is, last year's 10G might be next year's 40G or 100G. For #3, it is very hard to predict. We cannot extrapolate from the bootstrapping days of MICE, as it is unlikely we will continue to add members at the same rate. As a starting point, I would suggest we round #2's timeframe down to 5 years and then keep a close eye on what is actually happening.Adding this all together looks like this: 1) We estimate the current replacement cost of each switches. We subtract the amount we currently have budgeted. (At the start, that's zero.) We calculate the years remaining (10 years minus how long we have owned the switch). We divide those two numbers to determine how much we need to budget per year for hardware replacement. 2) Of our fastest port type, we currently have two switches. So we need to plan to replace those with two switches of the future port speed, at some point. We take the cost of the Juniper 10G switch when we purchased it. For each 10G switch, we take that cost, subtract what we currently have budgeted (zero), and divide that by the remaining time in the upgrade cycle (5 years minus the length of time we had the switch). This gives the amount we need to budget per year for port speed growth. Adding operating costs plus the capital costs defines our annual need. This is independent of how we recover these costs. Income On the income side, there are many possible models. I start by defining goals. Note that here I am talking about various types of fees which are possible. * We recover our budgeted costs. * Members are treated equally. o If there is a member fee, all members pay it equally. * Participants are treated equally. o If there is a participant fee, all participants pay it equally. * Remote switch operators are treated equally. o If there is a remote switch operator fee, all remote switch operators pay it equally. * Port users are treated neutrally. o If there are port fees, port users pay based on their port types/counts. o I oppose giving free ports to eyeball networks. o I oppose giving free ports to content providers. o I oppose differentiating non-profit versus for-profit. o PCH is an interesting edge case, because they are providing services for the Internet itself. I could accept them as a special case, if there was broad member consensus. A better answer, though, might be for the subset of interested members to donate to PCH to cover their fees. * We should not create perverse incentives on port speeds. o For example, if a 10G port costs ten times as much as a 1G port, we could see 4x1G or even 8x1G LAGs used rather than the preferred 10G. o Likewise, but less so (as port users' equipment costs act as disincentives), setting the prices the same may result in smaller port users utilizing 10G ports when 1G ports would be more than sufficient. o To address these concerns, the previous proposal put the "relative value" at 2x. Finally, here is my proposal of which possible fees to actually charge: * There should be a member fee, which is mandatory. o This formalizes whether or not you have voting rights within MICE. o The extra step weeds out participants who have no interest in governance, which helps with quorum issues. (This mayallow us to raise the quorum requirement, which was desired by some members.) o This fee should be a token amount. o Failure to pay the member fee results in a termination of membership (and thus voting rights), but not other statuses (e.g. participant status). * There should be a participant fee. o This fee should be a small amount. o We might set the amount based on the ARIN costs. o For the initial implementation, participant fees should be "optional". We would invoice for them, but not enforce disconnections for failure to pay. + We can revisit this item once we see how things go. * There should notbe a remote switch operator fee. o I do not see any costs to recover here. * There should be port fees. o This fee should be a large amount, relative to other fees. This is how we recover the capital costs. This is also how we recover the service contract costs. o For the initial implementation, port fees should be "optional". We would invoice for them, but not enforce disconnections for failure to pay. + We can revisit this item once we see how things go. Determining the actual fees is a math exercise given the inputs above. * -- Richard

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Richard Laager

On 09/09/2016 12:14 AM, David Farmer wrote: > I added paying member dues in addition to being attached as a membership > requirement for two reasons ... I agree with this point 100%. I believe any solution should have this as a component. I am very opposed to the rest of proposal. I highly doubt that the slightly increased recognition that comes from established sponsorship levels will increase donations in any significant way. I see how donations equal priority access to ports, but I'm very concerned about the "enforcement" of that. If we have a non-trivial number of non-member participants, who gets kicked off when a member needs the last available port? Do we kick off the participant with the lowest amount of traffic, which gives big players an advantage? Do we kick off the participant who connected last, entrenching older participants? Do we make the board decide, putting them in a complicated and conflict-prone position? If we don't kick anybody off, which seems like the most likely outcome, then priority access isn't very meaningful, and thus disappears as an incentive. More importantly, the "MPR model" does nothing to address the fact that invoices and donations are handled very differently in organizations. Ironically, I don't think this even works for the University of Minnesota. I believe it was your position that you needed an invoice, as "the University doesn't give donations; it accepts them". -- Richard

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Nevin Lyne

> I very much appreciate your participation and donations and wish there was > a good way to give you and others like you a vote in the governance of the > exchange. However, requiring a network attached to the exchange for > membership provides important protections. It helps prevent hostile or > malicious takeovers. If sponsors got a vote simply by donating money, > anyone with sufficient money could essentially stuff the ballot box. Less > conspiratorial, it helps ensure that those governing the exchange, are > tightly bound to the consequences of their decisions, which is usually a > good thing from a governance perspective. Forgive me I likely read something slightly wrong, pain meds from oral surgery can do that. That does make sense. > If you have suggestions to safely allow broader participation I'd love to > hear them. For cases like mine there could be a two part process a) I am indirectly part of the network as we are connected to a network of a member, IPHouse. We have both IP space from them, and they announce our own IP ranges via BGP for us. So traffic to our web hosting clients are routed via MICE to us via IPHouse's connection to MICE. We are also a large user of CloudFlare, and an Optimized Hosting Partner of theirs supplying a second connection to some degree of how traffic routes through MICE members to our clients. Just showing a case in how we could be seen as a connected member though not currently directly through our own port on the exchange. b) For a case like this that a sponsor can show a direct routing of traffic to them through a connected member, could leave it up to a vote of existing members if that sponsor qualifies enough to be a member? Regardless of sponsorship level. Just as you pointed out that some members of the exchange may not want to do anything to exchange traffic and not deal with governance you may have cases of a company that passes traffic over the exchange because of routing through a member's port and do want to be involved with a vote as what the exchange does, does impact traffic to my network too. Again semantics at this point as this of course is just the start of how your suggestion might work as a membership model, but I wanted to get my thoughts out there, again though I am not an official member of the exchange but have been involved from early on in the exchange to some degree. -Nevin -- Nevin Lyne -- Founder & Director of Technology -- Arcustech, LLC. - arcustech.com -- Gippy's Internet Solutions, LLC. - enginehosting.com

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by David Farmer

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:06 PM, Nevin Lyne <nevin(a)enginehosting.com> wrote: > .... > Something like this actually I think helps equality for people/companies > like mine where we do not have a need of direct ports on the exchange, but > indirectly benefit from the exchange and would like to both support the > exchange and have some say (a vote) as a member of the exchange. Currently > I can't be a voting member of the exchange unless I have an active port, > which I don't need, but we actively donate resources and hardware to the > exchange. > > -Nevin > > -- Nevin Lyne > -- Founder & Director of Technology > -- Arcustech, LLC. - arcustech.com > -- Gippy's Internet Solutions, LLC. - enginehosting.com I added paying member dues in addition to being attached as a membership requirement for two reasons; 1. It ensures at least some minimal financial contribution by everyone participating in the governance of the exchange. 2. And, by requiring an additional action beyond simply connecting to be a member, organizations that can't or simply don't want to be part of the governance can connect and exchange traffic, without causing issues for themselves or the good governance of the exchange. If a network that never intends to participate in the governance is counted as part of the membership, that will mess with quorum for meetings. I very much appreciate your participation and donations and wish there was a good way to give you and others like you a vote in the governance of the exchange. However, requiring a network attached to the exchange for membership provides important protections. It helps prevent hostile or malicious takeovers. If sponsors got a vote simply by donating money, anyone with sufficient money could essentially stuff the ballot box. Less conspiratorial, it helps ensure that those governing the exchange, are tightly bound to the consequences of their decisions, which is usually a good thing from a governance perspective. If you have suggestions to safely allow broader participation I'd love to hear them. 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 ===============================================

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by David Farmer

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:28 PM, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)aitech.net> wrote: > I like Mr. Farmer's proposal, it's got a little bit of an MPR feel to it, > but I won't hold it against him :) > Well close, I think it was the recent PBS pledge drive echoing in my head, at least the "sustaining member" bit. :) Actually, I think they are both apt analogies, PBS and MPR are community funded public services, that many people benefit from, but in varying and unequal ways. > So, there's Neutrality-- which I think everyone connected to MICE has a > common mindset in this department. > But many of us connect to MICE for very different reasons, so I suspect it > will never be equal. Neutral, yes. But probably never completely equal. > > ~Matthew > -- =============================================== 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 ===============================================

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Nevin Lyne

> On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:08:14AM +0000, Hannigan, Martin wrote: >> >> Classes create inequities. >> >> Im not in favor of this proposal. Open to discuss, but this degrades >> the premise of neutrality and equality IMHO. > > I'm on team M< right now. > > And I agree, it's a great start. As long as the Sponsorship levels in no way mean you have more voting ability I am not sure how this hurts neutrality or equality. Technically we already do this to some degree on the web site by simply a) listing members and b) listing people/companies that have donated money, equipment or other services. As not all members have donated time, money or resources to the exchange. I am seeing this as: a) members of the exchange are members of the exchange and have voting rights along with a port or ports on the exchange. b) sponsors at any level, may not be exchange members with a port active (like myself) but want to support the efforts of the exchange and would be nice to have voting rights like a member of the exchange has. But I guess I fail to see how you wanting to donate $10k/yr to the exchange for some web site level of recognition vs. my $1000/yr donate all that much power to you. Might be good for some bragging rights somewhere, but again as long as the sponsorship levels in no way give more control/voting rights/etc. over the affairs of the exchange I am not seeing how sponsorship levels hurts equality. Something like this actually I think helps equality for people/companies like mine where we do not have a need of direct ports on the exchange, but indirectly benefit from the exchange and would like to both support the exchange and have some say (a vote) as a member of the exchange. Currently I can't be a voting member of the exchange unless I have an active port, which I don't need, but we actively donate resources and hardware to the exchange. -Nevin -- Nevin Lyne -- Founder & Director of Technology -- Arcustech, LLC. - arcustech.com -- Gippy's Internet Solutions, LLC. - enginehosting.com

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by David Farmer

Is it the tying of Membership with the Sponsorship levels that you object to? I could see networks just being Members or not, ditching the idea of any distinction amongst Members by their sponsorship levels. With sponsors recognized by their level of sponsorship only, completely independent of their membership status. Would that be better? Thank you for the feedback. On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: > > Classes create inequities. > > Im not in favor of this proposal. Open to discuss, but this degrades the > premise of neutrality and equality IMHO. > > Its a great start! > > /myself > > Best, > > -M< > > > > On Sep 8, 2016, at 23:02, Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson(a)ARVIG.COM > <shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com>> wrote: > > David, > > I like the premise of this plan and it preserves the multiple > options/levels that have been consistently requested in our meetings and > discussions on this topic over the past several years. > > s > > > > *Shaun Carlson *Director of Information Technology | Arvig > ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Nevin Lyne <nevin(a)enginehosting.com> > wrote: > >> As a person and company that has donated hardware and services to MICE >> but I am not directly a member, rather I take advantage of MICE as a >> customer of IPHouse this provides a believer in MICE to direct assist and >> be recognized as working as part of the MICE community without actually >> being a directly connected network. >> >> Just my take on this idea and as someone that would sponsor both directly >> and in-kind. >> >> -Nevin >> >> -- Nevin Lyne >> -- Founder & Director of Technology >> -- Arcustech, LLC. - arcustech.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__arcustech.com&d=DQMFaQ&…> >> -- Gippy's Internet Solutions, LLC. - enginehosting.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__enginehosting.com&d=DQM…> >> >> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 2:19pm, "DeLong, Owen" <owen(a)AKAMAI.COM> >> said: >> >> > I personally like this plan, as it preserves the open nature of the >> exchange and >> > provides a way that any interested party can participate in the >> governance of the >> > exchange with a relatively minimal poll tax, as it were, yet provides a >> good clear >> > path for people who get more value from the exchange and have the >> ability to >> > contribute more to it to do so. >> > >> > In the interest of transparency, Akamai may be perceived to benefit >> from this >> > model vs. a flat-rate model. However, I would prefer this model, even >> if that were >> > not the case because I believe this model is sustainable yet lowers the >> barrier of >> > entry to participation in the exchange. Each additional connection to >> the exchange >> > provides value to all members of the exchange. Active participants >> provide even >> > more value. This model encourages active participation as well as a >> mechanism for >> > financial sustainability. >> > >> > I do not believe this would rise to the level of COI if this were to >> come before >> > the board during my tenure (if I am elected), but I am open to input >> from others >> > who may feel differently. >> > >> > Owen >> > >> > On Sep 8, 2016, at 11:05 , David Farmer <farmer(a)UMN.EDU<mailto:farmer@ >> umn.edu>> >> > wrote: >> > >> > I'm not a candidate and will not be a candidate for the Board. However, >> I propose >> > the following Membership and Sponsorship Model, including both >> Membership Dues and >> > Sponsorship levels for MICE Members and Non-Member Sponsors. >> > >> > The dollar values are just my suggestions, I think they should work but >> they are >> > primarily intended to illustrate the model. >> > >> > With this Model, any network may connect to the Exchange, but all >> networks >> > participating in governance, known as Members, will have some minimal >> > skin-in-the-game. Further, the Model implies Networks with 10G or >> larger ports >> > probably should participate at a more significant level, but this is >> not a >> > requirement for access to 10G or larger ports or even to participate in >> > governance. >> > >> > The Friends of MICE Sponsorship level is intended to be accessible to >> anyone >> > interested, including individual users of the Internet. >> > >> > My proposal; >> > >> > As an Open Internet Exchange any network with a uniquely registered >> Autonomous >> > System Number (ASN) may connect to MICE. However, Non-Member networks >> are >> > provided ports on the Exchange on an as-available basis only and >> Non-Members do >> > not participate in the governance of the Exchange or the MICE >> Organization, but >> > may observe and participate in its discussions. >> > >> > Networks connected to the Exchange, or Data Centers hosting an Exchange >> switch, >> > may become Members and participate in the governance of the Exchange >> and the MICE >> > Organization by paying Membership Dues at either level listed below. >> Members are >> > provided prefered access to 1G Exchange ports, and are provided access >> to 10G or >> > larger Exchange ports on an as-available basis. >> > >> > Sustaining or higher Members are committed to sustaining and growing >> the Exchange >> > by electing to pay Sustaining Membership Dues and/or paying Basic >> Membership Dues >> > and providing other Sponsorship to the Exchange of a value totaling >> $1000 or more. >> > In recognition to this additional commitment, Sustaining or higher >> Members are >> > provided prefered access to 10G or larger Exchange ports. >> > >> > Basic Membership Dues - $100 >> > Sustaining Membership Dues - $1000 >> > (Dues are paid in cash or cash equivalents only, and may not be >> provided through >> > in-kind services or equipment) >> > >> > Beyond Dues from Members, MICE accepts Sponsorship both from Members and >> > Non-Members Sponsors as cash, cash equivalents, in-kind services or >> equipment. >> > Sponsorship is recognized at the following escalating levels based on >> the total >> > value provided annually. >> > >> > Friends of MICE - Sponsorship of $50 ore more annually >> > Sustaining Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $1,000 or more annually >> > Silver Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $2,500 or more annually >> > Gold Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $5,000 or more annually >> > Platinum Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $10,000 or more annually >> > >> > Sponsorship of $20,000 or more are recognized with multiple years at >> the Platinum >> > level. >> > >> > Friends of MICE are list on a page on the MICE website. Sustaining or >> higher >> > Members are annotated as such in their listings on the MICE website. >> All >> > Sustaining or higher Members and Sponsors are listed on the MICE >> website, with >> > higher levels receiving more prominent placement. Silver or higher >> Members and >> > Sponsors are recognized in MICE marketing materials, with higher levels >> receiving >> > more prominent placement. >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > -- >> > =============================================== >> > David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu<mailto:E >> mail%3Afarmer(a)umn.edu> >> > Networking & Telecommunication Services >> > Office of Information Technology >> > University of Minnesota >> > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<tel:612-626-0815> >> > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<tel:612-812-9952> >> > =============================================== >> >> > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Mike Horwath

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:08:14AM +0000, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > > Classes create inequities. > > Im not in favor of this proposal. Open to discuss, but this degrades > the premise of neutrality and equality IMHO. I'm on team M< right now. And I agree, it's a great start. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Matthew Beckwell

I like Mr. Farmer's proposal, it's got a little bit of an MPR feel to it, but I won't hold it against him :) So, there's Neutrality-- which I think everyone connected to MICE has a common mindset in this department. But many of us connect to MICE for very different reasons, so I suspect it will never be equal. Neutral, yes. But probably never completely equal. ~Matthew On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: > > Classes create inequities. > > Im not in favor of this proposal. Open to discuss, but this degrades the > premise of neutrality and equality IMHO. > > Its a great start! > > /myself > > Best, > > -M< > > > > On Sep 8, 2016, at 23:02, Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson(a)ARVIG.COM > <shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com>> wrote: > > David, > > I like the premise of this plan and it preserves the multiple > options/levels that have been consistently requested in our meetings and > discussions on this topic over the past several years. > > s > > > > *Shaun Carlson *Director of Information Technology | Arvig > ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com > > On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Nevin Lyne <nevin(a)enginehosting.com> > wrote: > >> As a person and company that has donated hardware and services to MICE >> but I am not directly a member, rather I take advantage of MICE as a >> customer of IPHouse this provides a believer in MICE to direct assist and >> be recognized as working as part of the MICE community without actually >> being a directly connected network. >> >> Just my take on this idea and as someone that would sponsor both directly >> and in-kind. >> >> -Nevin >> >> -- Nevin Lyne >> -- Founder & Director of Technology >> -- Arcustech, LLC. - arcustech.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__arcustech.com&d=DQMFaQ&…> >> -- Gippy's Internet Solutions, LLC. - enginehosting.com >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__enginehosting.com&d=DQM…> >> >> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 2:19pm, "DeLong, Owen" <owen(a)AKAMAI.COM> >> said: >> >> > I personally like this plan, as it preserves the open nature of the >> exchange and >> > provides a way that any interested party can participate in the >> governance of the >> > exchange with a relatively minimal poll tax, as it were, yet provides a >> good clear >> > path for people who get more value from the exchange and have the >> ability to >> > contribute more to it to do so. >> > >> > In the interest of transparency, Akamai may be perceived to benefit >> from this >> > model vs. a flat-rate model. However, I would prefer this model, even >> if that were >> > not the case because I believe this model is sustainable yet lowers the >> barrier of >> > entry to participation in the exchange. Each additional connection to >> the exchange >> > provides value to all members of the exchange. Active participants >> provide even >> > more value. This model encourages active participation as well as a >> mechanism for >> > financial sustainability. >> > >> > I do not believe this would rise to the level of COI if this were to >> come before >> > the board during my tenure (if I am elected), but I am open to input >> from others >> > who may feel differently. >> > >> > Owen >> > >> > On Sep 8, 2016, at 11:05 , David Farmer <farmer(a)UMN.EDU<mailto:farmer@ >> umn.edu>> >> > wrote: >> > >> > I'm not a candidate and will not be a candidate for the Board. However, >> I propose >> > the following Membership and Sponsorship Model, including both >> Membership Dues and >> > Sponsorship levels for MICE Members and Non-Member Sponsors. >> > >> > The dollar values are just my suggestions, I think they should work but >> they are >> > primarily intended to illustrate the model. >> > >> > With this Model, any network may connect to the Exchange, but all >> networks >> > participating in governance, known as Members, will have some minimal >> > skin-in-the-game. Further, the Model implies Networks with 10G or >> larger ports >> > probably should participate at a more significant level, but this is >> not a >> > requirement for access to 10G or larger ports or even to participate in >> > governance. >> > >> > The Friends of MICE Sponsorship level is intended to be accessible to >> anyone >> > interested, including individual users of the Internet. >> > >> > My proposal; >> > >> > As an Open Internet Exchange any network with a uniquely registered >> Autonomous >> > System Number (ASN) may connect to MICE. However, Non-Member networks >> are >> > provided ports on the Exchange on an as-available basis only and >> Non-Members do >> > not participate in the governance of the Exchange or the MICE >> Organization, but >> > may observe and participate in its discussions. >> > >> > Networks connected to the Exchange, or Data Centers hosting an Exchange >> switch, >> > may become Members and participate in the governance of the Exchange >> and the MICE >> > Organization by paying Membership Dues at either level listed below. >> Members are >> > provided prefered access to 1G Exchange ports, and are provided access >> to 10G or >> > larger Exchange ports on an as-available basis. >> > >> > Sustaining or higher Members are committed to sustaining and growing >> the Exchange >> > by electing to pay Sustaining Membership Dues and/or paying Basic >> Membership Dues >> > and providing other Sponsorship to the Exchange of a value totaling >> $1000 or more. >> > In recognition to this additional commitment, Sustaining or higher >> Members are >> > provided prefered access to 10G or larger Exchange ports. >> > >> > Basic Membership Dues - $100 >> > Sustaining Membership Dues - $1000 >> > (Dues are paid in cash or cash equivalents only, and may not be >> provided through >> > in-kind services or equipment) >> > >> > Beyond Dues from Members, MICE accepts Sponsorship both from Members and >> > Non-Members Sponsors as cash, cash equivalents, in-kind services or >> equipment. >> > Sponsorship is recognized at the following escalating levels based on >> the total >> > value provided annually. >> > >> > Friends of MICE - Sponsorship of $50 ore more annually >> > Sustaining Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $1,000 or more annually >> > Silver Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $2,500 or more annually >> > Gold Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $5,000 or more annually >> > Platinum Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $10,000 or more annually >> > >> > Sponsorship of $20,000 or more are recognized with multiple years at >> the Platinum >> > level. >> > >> > Friends of MICE are list on a page on the MICE website. Sustaining or >> higher >> > Members are annotated as such in their listings on the MICE website. >> All >> > Sustaining or higher Members and Sponsors are listed on the MICE >> website, with >> > higher levels receiving more prominent placement. Silver or higher >> Members and >> > Sponsors are recognized in MICE marketing materials, with higher levels >> receiving >> > more prominent placement. >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > -- >> > =============================================== >> > David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu<mailto:E >> mail%3Afarmer(a)umn.edu> >> > Networking & Telecommunication Services >> > Office of Information Technology >> > University of Minnesota >> > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<tel:612-626-0815> >> > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<tel:612-812-9952> >> > =============================================== >> >> > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Hannigan, Martin

Classes create inequities. Im not in favor of this proposal. Open to discuss, but this degrades the premise of neutrality and equality IMHO. Its a great start! /myself Best, -M< On Sep 8, 2016, at 23:02, Shaun Carlson <shaun.carlson(a)ARVIG.COM<mailto:shaun.carlson@arvig.com>> wrote: David, I like the premise of this plan and it preserves the multiple options/levels that have been consistently requested in our meetings and discussions on this topic over the past several years. s Shaun Carlson Director of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com<mailto:shaun.carlson@arvig.com> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Nevin Lyne <nevin(a)enginehosting.com<mailto:nevin@enginehosting.com>> wrote: As a person and company that has donated hardware and services to MICE but I am not directly a member, rather I take advantage of MICE as a customer of IPHouse this provides a believer in MICE to direct assist and be recognized as working as part of the MICE community without actually being a directly connected network. Just my take on this idea and as someone that would sponsor both directly and in-kind. -Nevin -- Nevin Lyne -- Founder & Director of Technology -- Arcustech, LLC. - arcustech.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__arcustech.com&d=DQMFaQ&…> -- Gippy's Internet Solutions, LLC. - enginehosting.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__enginehosting.com&d=DQM…> On Thursday, September 8, 2016 2:19pm, "DeLong, Owen" <owen(a)AKAMAI.COM<mailto:owen@AKAMAI.COM>> said: > I personally like this plan, as it preserves the open nature of the exchange and > provides a way that any interested party can participate in the governance of the > exchange with a relatively minimal poll tax, as it were, yet provides a good clear > path for people who get more value from the exchange and have the ability to > contribute more to it to do so. > > In the interest of transparency, Akamai may be perceived to benefit from this > model vs. a flat-rate model. However, I would prefer this model, even if that were > not the case because I believe this model is sustainable yet lowers the barrier of > entry to participation in the exchange. Each additional connection to the exchange > provides value to all members of the exchange. Active participants provide even > more value. This model encourages active participation as well as a mechanism for > financial sustainability. > > I do not believe this would rise to the level of COI if this were to come before > the board during my tenure (if I am elected), but I am open to input from others > who may feel differently. > > Owen > > On Sep 8, 2016, at 11:05 , David Farmer <farmer(a)UMN.EDU<mailto:farmer@UMN.EDU><mailto:farmer@umn.edu<mailto:farmer@umn.edu>>> > wrote: > > I'm not a candidate and will not be a candidate for the Board. However, I propose > the following Membership and Sponsorship Model, including both Membership Dues and > Sponsorship levels for MICE Members and Non-Member Sponsors. > > The dollar values are just my suggestions, I think they should work but they are > primarily intended to illustrate the model. > > With this Model, any network may connect to the Exchange, but all networks > participating in governance, known as Members, will have some minimal > skin-in-the-game. Further, the Model implies Networks with 10G or larger ports > probably should participate at a more significant level, but this is not a > requirement for access to 10G or larger ports or even to participate in > governance. > > The Friends of MICE Sponsorship level is intended to be accessible to anyone > interested, including individual users of the Internet. > > My proposal; > > As an Open Internet Exchange any network with a uniquely registered Autonomous > System Number (ASN) may connect to MICE. However, Non-Member networks are > provided ports on the Exchange on an as-available basis only and Non-Members do > not participate in the governance of the Exchange or the MICE Organization, but > may observe and participate in its discussions. > > Networks connected to the Exchange, or Data Centers hosting an Exchange switch, > may become Members and participate in the governance of the Exchange and the MICE > Organization by paying Membership Dues at either level listed below. Members are > provided prefered access to 1G Exchange ports, and are provided access to 10G or > larger Exchange ports on an as-available basis. > > Sustaining or higher Members are committed to sustaining and growing the Exchange > by electing to pay Sustaining Membership Dues and/or paying Basic Membership Dues > and providing other Sponsorship to the Exchange of a value totaling $1000 or more. > In recognition to this additional commitment, Sustaining or higher Members are > provided prefered access to 10G or larger Exchange ports. > > Basic Membership Dues - $100 > Sustaining Membership Dues - $1000 > (Dues are paid in cash or cash equivalents only, and may not be provided through > in-kind services or equipment) > > Beyond Dues from Members, MICE accepts Sponsorship both from Members and > Non-Members Sponsors as cash, cash equivalents, in-kind services or equipment. > Sponsorship is recognized at the following escalating levels based on the total > value provided annually. > > Friends of MICE - Sponsorship of $50 ore more annually > Sustaining Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $1,000 or more annually > Silver Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $2,500 or more annually > Gold Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $5,000 or more annually > Platinum Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $10,000 or more annually > > Sponsorship of $20,000 or more are recognized with multiple years at the Platinum > level. > > Friends of MICE are list on a page on the MICE website. Sustaining or higher > Members are annotated as such in their listings on the MICE website. All > Sustaining or higher Members and Sponsors are listed on the MICE website, with > higher levels receiving more prominent placement. Silver or higher Members and > Sponsors are recognized in MICE marketing materials, with higher levels receiving > more prominent placement. > > Thanks > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu<mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu><mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu<mailto:Email%253Afarmer@umn.edu>> > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<tel:612-626-0815><tel:612-626-0815<tel:612-626-0815>> > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<tel:612-812-9952><tel:612-812-9952<tel:612-812-9952>> > =============================================== ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…>

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Shaun Carlson

David, I like the premise of this plan and it preserves the multiple options/levels that have been consistently requested in our meetings and discussions on this topic over the past several years. s *Shaun Carlson*Director of Information Technology | Arvig ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: shaun.carlson(a)arvig.com On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Nevin Lyne <nevin(a)enginehosting.com> wrote: > As a person and company that has donated hardware and services to MICE but > I am not directly a member, rather I take advantage of MICE as a customer > of IPHouse this provides a believer in MICE to direct assist and be > recognized as working as part of the MICE community without actually being > a directly connected network. > > Just my take on this idea and as someone that would sponsor both directly > and in-kind. > > -Nevin > > -- Nevin Lyne > -- Founder & Director of Technology > -- Arcustech, LLC. - arcustech.com > -- Gippy's Internet Solutions, LLC. - enginehosting.com > > On Thursday, September 8, 2016 2:19pm, "DeLong, Owen" <owen(a)AKAMAI.COM> > said: > > > I personally like this plan, as it preserves the open nature of the > exchange and > > provides a way that any interested party can participate in the > governance of the > > exchange with a relatively minimal poll tax, as it were, yet provides a > good clear > > path for people who get more value from the exchange and have the > ability to > > contribute more to it to do so. > > > > In the interest of transparency, Akamai may be perceived to benefit from > this > > model vs. a flat-rate model. However, I would prefer this model, even if > that were > > not the case because I believe this model is sustainable yet lowers the > barrier of > > entry to participation in the exchange. Each additional connection to > the exchange > > provides value to all members of the exchange. Active participants > provide even > > more value. This model encourages active participation as well as a > mechanism for > > financial sustainability. > > > > I do not believe this would rise to the level of COI if this were to > come before > > the board during my tenure (if I am elected), but I am open to input > from others > > who may feel differently. > > > > Owen > > > > On Sep 8, 2016, at 11:05 , David Farmer <farmer(a)UMN.EDU<mailto:farmer@ > umn.edu>> > > wrote: > > > > I'm not a candidate and will not be a candidate for the Board. However, > I propose > > the following Membership and Sponsorship Model, including both > Membership Dues and > > Sponsorship levels for MICE Members and Non-Member Sponsors. > > > > The dollar values are just my suggestions, I think they should work but > they are > > primarily intended to illustrate the model. > > > > With this Model, any network may connect to the Exchange, but all > networks > > participating in governance, known as Members, will have some minimal > > skin-in-the-game. Further, the Model implies Networks with 10G or > larger ports > > probably should participate at a more significant level, but this is not > a > > requirement for access to 10G or larger ports or even to participate in > > governance. > > > > The Friends of MICE Sponsorship level is intended to be accessible to > anyone > > interested, including individual users of the Internet. > > > > My proposal; > > > > As an Open Internet Exchange any network with a uniquely registered > Autonomous > > System Number (ASN) may connect to MICE. However, Non-Member networks > are > > provided ports on the Exchange on an as-available basis only and > Non-Members do > > not participate in the governance of the Exchange or the MICE > Organization, but > > may observe and participate in its discussions. > > > > Networks connected to the Exchange, or Data Centers hosting an Exchange > switch, > > may become Members and participate in the governance of the Exchange and > the MICE > > Organization by paying Membership Dues at either level listed below. > Members are > > provided prefered access to 1G Exchange ports, and are provided access > to 10G or > > larger Exchange ports on an as-available basis. > > > > Sustaining or higher Members are committed to sustaining and growing the > Exchange > > by electing to pay Sustaining Membership Dues and/or paying Basic > Membership Dues > > and providing other Sponsorship to the Exchange of a value totaling > $1000 or more. > > In recognition to this additional commitment, Sustaining or higher > Members are > > provided prefered access to 10G or larger Exchange ports. > > > > Basic Membership Dues - $100 > > Sustaining Membership Dues - $1000 > > (Dues are paid in cash or cash equivalents only, and may not be provided > through > > in-kind services or equipment) > > > > Beyond Dues from Members, MICE accepts Sponsorship both from Members and > > Non-Members Sponsors as cash, cash equivalents, in-kind services or > equipment. > > Sponsorship is recognized at the following escalating levels based on > the total > > value provided annually. > > > > Friends of MICE - Sponsorship of $50 ore more annually > > Sustaining Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $1,000 or more annually > > Silver Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $2,500 or more annually > > Gold Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $5,000 or more annually > > Platinum Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $10,000 or more annually > > > > Sponsorship of $20,000 or more are recognized with multiple years at the > Platinum > > level. > > > > Friends of MICE are list on a page on the MICE website. Sustaining or > higher > > Members are annotated as such in their listings on the MICE website. All > > Sustaining or higher Members and Sponsors are listed on the MICE > website, with > > higher levels receiving more prominent placement. Silver or higher > Members and > > Sponsors are recognized in MICE marketing materials, with higher levels > receiving > > more prominent placement. > > > > Thanks > > > > -- > > =============================================== > > David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu<mailto:Em > ail%3Afarmer(a)umn.edu> > > Networking & Telecommunication Services > > Office of Information Technology > > University of Minnesota > > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<tel:612-626-0815> > > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<tel:612-812-9952> > > =============================================== > >

Sept. 9, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by Nevin Lyne

As a person and company that has donated hardware and services to MICE but I am not directly a member, rather I take advantage of MICE as a customer of IPHouse this provides a believer in MICE to direct assist and be recognized as working as part of the MICE community without actually being a directly connected network. Just my take on this idea and as someone that would sponsor both directly and in-kind. -Nevin -- Nevin Lyne -- Founder & Director of Technology -- Arcustech, LLC. - arcustech.com -- Gippy's Internet Solutions, LLC. - enginehosting.com On Thursday, September 8, 2016 2:19pm, "DeLong, Owen" <owen(a)AKAMAI.COM> said: > I personally like this plan, as it preserves the open nature of the exchange and > provides a way that any interested party can participate in the governance of the > exchange with a relatively minimal poll tax, as it were, yet provides a good clear > path for people who get more value from the exchange and have the ability to > contribute more to it to do so. > > In the interest of transparency, Akamai may be perceived to benefit from this > model vs. a flat-rate model. However, I would prefer this model, even if that were > not the case because I believe this model is sustainable yet lowers the barrier of > entry to participation in the exchange. Each additional connection to the exchange > provides value to all members of the exchange. Active participants provide even > more value. This model encourages active participation as well as a mechanism for > financial sustainability. > > I do not believe this would rise to the level of COI if this were to come before > the board during my tenure (if I am elected), but I am open to input from others > who may feel differently. > > Owen > > On Sep 8, 2016, at 11:05 , David Farmer <farmer(a)UMN.EDU<mailto:farmer@umn.edu>> > wrote: > > I'm not a candidate and will not be a candidate for the Board. However, I propose > the following Membership and Sponsorship Model, including both Membership Dues and > Sponsorship levels for MICE Members and Non-Member Sponsors. > > The dollar values are just my suggestions, I think they should work but they are > primarily intended to illustrate the model. > > With this Model, any network may connect to the Exchange, but all networks > participating in governance, known as Members, will have some minimal > skin-in-the-game. Further, the Model implies Networks with 10G or larger ports > probably should participate at a more significant level, but this is not a > requirement for access to 10G or larger ports or even to participate in > governance. > > The Friends of MICE Sponsorship level is intended to be accessible to anyone > interested, including individual users of the Internet. > > My proposal; > > As an Open Internet Exchange any network with a uniquely registered Autonomous > System Number (ASN) may connect to MICE. However, Non-Member networks are > provided ports on the Exchange on an as-available basis only and Non-Members do > not participate in the governance of the Exchange or the MICE Organization, but > may observe and participate in its discussions. > > Networks connected to the Exchange, or Data Centers hosting an Exchange switch, > may become Members and participate in the governance of the Exchange and the MICE > Organization by paying Membership Dues at either level listed below. Members are > provided prefered access to 1G Exchange ports, and are provided access to 10G or > larger Exchange ports on an as-available basis. > > Sustaining or higher Members are committed to sustaining and growing the Exchange > by electing to pay Sustaining Membership Dues and/or paying Basic Membership Dues > and providing other Sponsorship to the Exchange of a value totaling $1000 or more. > In recognition to this additional commitment, Sustaining or higher Members are > provided prefered access to 10G or larger Exchange ports. > > Basic Membership Dues - $100 > Sustaining Membership Dues - $1000 > (Dues are paid in cash or cash equivalents only, and may not be provided through > in-kind services or equipment) > > Beyond Dues from Members, MICE accepts Sponsorship both from Members and > Non-Members Sponsors as cash, cash equivalents, in-kind services or equipment. > Sponsorship is recognized at the following escalating levels based on the total > value provided annually. > > Friends of MICE - Sponsorship of $50 ore more annually > Sustaining Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $1,000 or more annually > Silver Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $2,500 or more annually > Gold Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $5,000 or more annually > Platinum Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $10,000 or more annually > > Sponsorship of $20,000 or more are recognized with multiple years at the Platinum > level. > > Friends of MICE are list on a page on the MICE website. Sustaining or higher > Members are annotated as such in their listings on the MICE website. All > Sustaining or higher Members and Sponsors are listed on the MICE website, with > higher levels receiving more prominent placement. Silver or higher Members and > Sponsors are recognized in MICE marketing materials, with higher levels receiving > more prominent placement. > > Thanks > > -- > =============================================== > David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu<mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu> > Networking & Telecommunication Services > Office of Information Technology > University of Minnesota > 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<tel:612-626-0815> > Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<tel:612-812-9952> > ===============================================

Sept. 8, 2016

Re: Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by DeLong, Owen

I personally like this plan, as it preserves the open nature of the exchange and provides a way that any interested party can participate in the governance of the exchange with a relatively minimal poll tax, as it were, yet provides a good clear path for people who get more value from the exchange and have the ability to contribute more to it to do so. In the interest of transparency, Akamai may be perceived to benefit from this model vs. a flat-rate model. However, I would prefer this model, even if that were not the case because I believe this model is sustainable yet lowers the barrier of entry to participation in the exchange. Each additional connection to the exchange provides value to all members of the exchange. Active participants provide even more value. This model encourages active participation as well as a mechanism for financial sustainability. I do not believe this would rise to the level of COI if this were to come before the board during my tenure (if I am elected), but I am open to input from others who may feel differently. Owen On Sep 8, 2016, at 11:05 , David Farmer <farmer(a)UMN.EDU<mailto:farmer@umn.edu>> wrote: I'm not a candidate and will not be a candidate for the Board. However, I propose the following Membership and Sponsorship Model, including both Membership Dues and Sponsorship levels for MICE Members and Non-Member Sponsors. The dollar values are just my suggestions, I think they should work but they are primarily intended to illustrate the model. With this Model, any network may connect to the Exchange, but all networks participating in governance, known as Members, will have some minimal skin-in-the-game. Further, the Model implies Networks with 10G or larger ports probably should participate at a more significant level, but this is not a requirement for access to 10G or larger ports or even to participate in governance. The Friends of MICE Sponsorship level is intended to be accessible to anyone interested, including individual users of the Internet. My proposal; As an Open Internet Exchange any network with a uniquely registered Autonomous System Number (ASN) may connect to MICE. However, Non-Member networks are provided ports on the Exchange on an as-available basis only and Non-Members do not participate in the governance of the Exchange or the MICE Organization, but may observe and participate in its discussions. Networks connected to the Exchange, or Data Centers hosting an Exchange switch, may become Members and participate in the governance of the Exchange and the MICE Organization by paying Membership Dues at either level listed below. Members are provided prefered access to 1G Exchange ports, and are provided access to 10G or larger Exchange ports on an as-available basis. Sustaining or higher Members are committed to sustaining and growing the Exchange by electing to pay Sustaining Membership Dues and/or paying Basic Membership Dues and providing other Sponsorship to the Exchange of a value totaling $1000 or more. In recognition to this additional commitment, Sustaining or higher Members are provided prefered access to 10G or larger Exchange ports. Basic Membership Dues - $100 Sustaining Membership Dues - $1000 (Dues are paid in cash or cash equivalents only, and may not be provided through in-kind services or equipment) Beyond Dues from Members, MICE accepts Sponsorship both from Members and Non-Members Sponsors as cash, cash equivalents, in-kind services or equipment. Sponsorship is recognized at the following escalating levels based on the total value provided annually. Friends of MICE - Sponsorship of $50 ore more annually Sustaining Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $1,000 or more annually Silver Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $2,500 or more annually Gold Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $5,000 or more annually Platinum Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $10,000 or more annually Sponsorship of $20,000 or more are recognized with multiple years at the Platinum level. Friends of MICE are list on a page on the MICE website. Sustaining or higher Members are annotated as such in their listings on the MICE website. All Sustaining or higher Members and Sponsors are listed on the MICE website, with higher levels receiving more prominent placement. Silver or higher Members and Sponsors are recognized in MICE marketing materials, with higher levels receiving more prominent placement. Thanks -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu<mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu> Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<tel:612-626-0815> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<tel:612-812-9952> =============================================== ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…>

Sept. 8, 2016

Proposed Membership and Sponsorship Model

by David Farmer

I'm not a candidate and will not be a candidate for the Board. However, I propose the following Membership and Sponsorship Model, including both Membership Dues and Sponsorship levels for MICE Members and Non-Member Sponsors. The dollar values are just my suggestions, I think they should work but they are primarily intended to illustrate the model. With this Model, any network may connect to the Exchange, but all networks participating in governance, known as Members, will have some minimal skin-in-the-game. Further, the Model implies Networks with 10G or larger ports probably should participate at a more significant level, but this is not a requirement for access to 10G or larger ports or even to participate in governance. The Friends of MICE Sponsorship level is intended to be accessible to anyone interested, including individual users of the Internet. My proposal; As an Open Internet Exchange any network with a uniquely registered Autonomous System Number (ASN) may connect to MICE. However, Non-Member networks are provided ports on the Exchange on an as-available basis only and Non-Members do not participate in the governance of the Exchange or the MICE Organization, but may observe and participate in its discussions. Networks connected to the Exchange, or Data Centers hosting an Exchange switch, may become Members and participate in the governance of the Exchange and the MICE Organization by paying Membership Dues at either level listed below. Members are provided prefered access to 1G Exchange ports, and are provided access to 10G or larger Exchange ports on an as-available basis. Sustaining or higher Members are committed to sustaining and growing the Exchange by electing to pay Sustaining Membership Dues and/or paying Basic Membership Dues and providing other Sponsorship to the Exchange of a value totaling $1000 or more. In recognition to this additional commitment, Sustaining or higher Members are provided prefered access to 10G or larger Exchange ports. Basic Membership Dues - $100 Sustaining Membership Dues - $1000 (Dues are paid in cash or cash equivalents only, and may not be provided through in-kind services or equipment) Beyond Dues from Members, MICE accepts Sponsorship both from Members and Non-Members Sponsors as cash, cash equivalents, in-kind services or equipment. Sponsorship is recognized at the following escalating levels based on the total value provided annually. Friends of MICE - Sponsorship of $50 ore more annually Sustaining Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $1,000 or more annually Silver Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $2,500 or more annually Gold Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $5,000 or more annually Platinum Members or Sponsors - Sponsorship of $10,000 or more annually Sponsorship of $20,000 or more are recognized with multiple years at the Platinum level. Friends of MICE are list on a page on the MICE website. Sustaining or higher Members are annotated as such in their listings on the MICE website. All Sustaining or higher Members and Sponsors are listed on the MICE website, with higher levels receiving more prominent placement. Silver or higher Members and Sponsors are recognized in MICE marketing materials, with higher levels receiving more prominent placement. 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 ===============================================

Sept. 8, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by Reid Fishler

I agree with a coop exchange, all members are equal. As I have stated before, I am in favor of a billed amount thats small, per member, but that we do NOT turn members off for non-payment. However we need to get the 501c status settled first, which is happening. Reid On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:12 AM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > Just to add my two cents. When I start to go down someone else's rabbit > hole of thought about value, and peering, this is what I come back to. > > I feel that everyone's traffic should be valued equally. My 1 Meg should > be of no different value than someone else's No traffic direction should > be more important than another. Remember the most common methods of > communication on this exchange are a 2 way conversation. A server > typically does not send traffic unless a client requests it. I want > everyone to pay a fair price for what they are getting. This also > discourages wasting of resources since it makes it much less likely to go > for a 10G port out of convenience when peak traffic will be around 100M, > and 1G port is much more affordable, and a better fit. Almost no one > expects to get anything for free, that goes beyond the realm of nonprofit, > and into charity. > > If you agree with these or not, you can look at the opposite to see what > happens. Carriers that value their bandwidth different than others, > typically do not peer on exchanges like MICE. They like to make money on > both ends of the pipe, which usually leads to private peering > disputes/de-peering, and allowing links to saturate in an attempt to prove > a point. We all know who these carriers are, and their mindset does not > match what I believe a cooperative exchange is all about. I have made a > conscious effort to limit how much transit I buy from companies like these, > and when the sales people call, my answer is usually along the lines of > talk to me when you change your peering policies. > > > Jeremy Lumby > Minnesota VoIP > 9217 17th Ave S > Suite 216 > Bloomington, MN 55425 > Main: 612-355-7740 x211 > Direct: 612-392-6814 > EFax: 952-873-7425 > jlumby(a)mnvoip.com > > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

Sept. 8, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by Jeremy Lumby

Just to add my two cents. When I start to go down someone else's rabbit hole of thought about value, and peering, this is what I come back to. I feel that everyone's traffic should be valued equally. My 1 Meg should be of no different value than someone else's No traffic direction should be more important than another. Remember the most common methods of communication on this exchange are a 2 way conversation. A server typically does not send traffic unless a client requests it. I want everyone to pay a fair price for what they are getting. This also discourages wasting of resources since it makes it much less likely to go for a 10G port out of convenience when peak traffic will be around 100M, and 1G port is much more affordable, and a better fit. Almost no one expects to get anything for free, that goes beyond the realm of nonprofit, and into charity. If you agree with these or not, you can look at the opposite to see what happens. Carriers that value their bandwidth different than others, typically do not peer on exchanges like MICE. They like to make money on both ends of the pipe, which usually leads to private peering disputes/de-peering, and allowing links to saturate in an attempt to prove a point. We all know who these carriers are, and their mindset does not match what I believe a cooperative exchange is all about. I have made a conscious effort to limit how much transit I buy from companies like these, and when the sales people call, my answer is usually along the lines of talk to me when you change your peering policies. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S Suite 216 Bloomington, MN 55425 Main: 612-355-7740 x211 Direct: 612-392-6814 EFax: 952-873-7425 jlumby(a)mnvoip.com

Sept. 8, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by Mike Horwath

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:49:32AM +0000, Hannigan, Martin wrote: > Moral of the story? Keep your options open and operate as a > business. Mutual benefit. You, sir, are my freakin' hero! -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 8, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by Mike Horwath

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:40:44AM +0000, James Renken wrote: > Maybe a case-by-case basis? This creates favortism and old-boys-club issues. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 8, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by Hannigan, Martin

On Sep 7, 2016, at 16:16, Brady Kittel <bkittel(a)GMAIL.COM<mailto:bkittel@gmail.com>> wrote: I agree that we should pay our fair share. Largely we just need to get a bill that we can pay with a PO and it isn't a problem. That said is they're ever a scenario that discounting port fees for an entity would have a net benefit for the exchange? Yes. Ex: Content providers that otherwise a) serve you all "free" over transit facing you as downstream customer, b) serving from other indirect but cheaper paths which both could result in the IX being a thin business case for a variety of reasons. You pay $2 per mb/s transit You pay $.09 net for well utilized exchange port If you had 1000 mb/s to %CDN over transit And you reduce that to 250 mbs with 750 mb/s here And 10 members do that Its quite the economic impact. Not to mention performance boost and leveler of playing field. Moral of the story? Keep your options open and operate as a business. Mutual benefit. Best, Martin On Sep 7, 2016 3:02 PM, "Asp, David" <David.Asp(a)co.dakota.mn.us<mailto:David.Asp@co.dakota.mn.us>> wrote: From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] On Behalf Of Asp, David Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:02 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Candidate Question My opinion working for a county government is that every one should be treated equally. David Asp Network Collaboration Engineer Dakota County Government Center 1590 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033 Office: 651-438-4271<tel:651-438-4271> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Howard Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:52 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Candidate Question On 09/07/2016 02:39 PM, James Renken wrote: On Sep 7, 2016, at 08:33, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET><mailto:jayhanke@NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: Up to this point MICE has been fairly successful without any required port fees for members. There have been minor difficulties paying hardware support and annual ARIN fees. We have reached a long-term (5 year) agreement with Cologix to continue the existing no cost relationship for space and power. Do you see the finical current model as sustainable for MICE? What changes would you suggest on the business side? I'm not sure we can stay with our current model over the long term. We can rely on our great (and mutually beneficial) relationship with Cologix for space and power, but I don't think we can assume we'll always be able to get financial or hardware donations, especially on short notice. The industry is only getting more challenging; we should work towards self-sufficiency. That would mean port fees. I think we should base port fees on our budget: ARIN fees, hardware support, and accumulating enough savings to replace our core switch with a newer, refurbished model by the end of its useful life. We should also plan to gradually save extra for emergencies like legal fees; I agree with Owen, saving over a period of maybe five years. I'd also like to consider whether we should exempt non-profit and government entities from port fees. There are few enough that it doesn't seem like a large burden for the rest of us. Why would we want to exempt non-profit and government entities? MICE is a cooperative exchange. Every member should be treated the same. If you'd like to support non-profits and governmental entities, you are free to pay their fees. Don't force others to pay somebody else's fair share. ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…> ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.iphouse.net_cgi-2…>

Sept. 8, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by James Renken

On Sep 7, 2016, at 15:15, Brady Kittel <bkittel(a)GMAIL.COM<mailto:bkittel@GMAIL.COM>> wrote: I agree that we should pay our fair share. Largely we just need to get a bill that we can pay with a PO and it isn't a problem. That said is they're ever a scenario that discounting port fees for an entity would have a net benefit for the exchange? The example I have in mind is PCH, whom we’re working to bring in: they’re a non-profit and will bring anycast root server instances (I believe E-root and L-root) right onto MICE. I believe we were also floating the idea of an inter-IXP connection to Winnipeg, which would be another case where I’d like to propose waiving port fees. Maybe a case-by-case basis? -- James Renken, Sr. Systems Architect ipHouse - https://www.iphouse.com/ james(a)iphouse.net<mailto:james@iphouse.net> / +1 (612) 337-6337

Sept. 8, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by Mike Horwath

On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 03:53:14PM -0500, Dan Boehlke wrote: > I like that Owen says he wants to build consensus on what to do with > the model. MICE sustainability is important. Many of us count on > it now. It's a very good thing to make it self-sustaining. I know, I preach on this too much. It's the dead horse that keeps coming back for more. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by Dan Boehlke

I like that Owen says he wants to build consensus on what to do with the model. MICE sustainability is important. Many of us count on it now. -- Dan Boehlke 612-704-2890 > On Sep 7, 2016, at 2:51 PM, Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > > > On 09/07/2016 02:39 PM, James Renken wrote: >> On Sep 7, 2016, at 08:33, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> <mailto:jayhanke@NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: >>> Up to this point MICE has been fairly successful without any required port fees for members. There have been minor difficulties paying hardware support and annual ARIN fees. We have reached a long-term (5 year) agreement with Cologix to continue the existing no cost relationship for space and power. >>> >>> Do you see the finical current model as sustainable for MICE? What changes would you suggest on the business side? >> I’m not sure we can stay with our current model over the long term. We can rely on our great (and mutually beneficial) relationship with Cologix for space and power, but I don’t think we can assume we’ll always be able to get financial or hardware donations, especially on short notice. The industry is only getting more challenging; we should work towards self-sufficiency. That would mean port fees. >> >> I think we should base port fees on our budget: ARIN fees, hardware support, and accumulating enough savings to replace our core switch with a newer, refurbished model by the end of its useful life. We should also plan to gradually save extra for emergencies like legal fees; I agree with Owen, saving over a period of maybe five years. >> >> I’d also like to consider whether we should exempt non-profit and government entities from port fees. There are few enough that it doesn’t seem like a large burden for the rest of us. >> > > Why would we want to exempt non-profit and government entities? > > MICE is a cooperative exchange. Every member should be treated the same. > > If you'd like to support non-profits and governmental entities, you are free to pay their fees. Don't force others to pay somebody else's fair share. > > > > > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1>

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by Brady Kittel

I agree that we should pay our fair share. Largely we just need to get a bill that we can pay with a PO and it isn't a problem. That said is they're ever a scenario that discounting port fees for an entity would have a net benefit for the exchange? On Sep 7, 2016 3:02 PM, "Asp, David" <David.Asp(a)co.dakota.mn.us> wrote: > > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] *On Behalf > Of *Asp, David > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:02 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Candidate Question > > > > My opinion working for a county government is that every one should be > treated equally. > > > > > > *David Asp* > > *Network Collaboration Engineer* > > *Dakota County Government Center* > > *1590 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033* > > *Office: 651-438-4271 <651-438-4271>* > > > > > > > > *From:* MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > <MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET>] *On Behalf Of *Steve Howard > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:52 PM > *To:* MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > *Subject:* Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Candidate Question > > > > > > On 09/07/2016 02:39 PM, James Renken wrote: > > On Sep 7, 2016, at 08:33, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: > > Up to this point MICE has been fairly successful without any required port fees for members. There have been minor difficulties paying hardware support and annual ARIN fees. We have reached a long-term (5 year) agreement with Cologix to continue the existing no cost relationship for space and power. > > > > Do you see the finical current model as sustainable for MICE? What changes would you suggest on the business side? > > > > I’m not sure we can stay with our current model over the long term. We can rely on our great (and mutually beneficial) relationship with Cologix for space and power, but I don’t think we can assume we’ll always be able to get financial or hardware donations, especially on short notice. The industry is only getting more challenging; we should work towards self-sufficiency. That would mean port fees. > > > > I think we should base port fees on our budget: ARIN fees, hardware support, and accumulating enough savings to replace our core switch with a newer, refurbished model by the end of its useful life. We should also plan to gradually save extra for emergencies like legal fees; I agree with Owen, saving over a period of maybe five years. > > > > I’d also like to consider whether we should exempt non-profit and government entities from port fees. There are few enough that it doesn’t seem like a large burden for the rest of us. > > > > > Why would we want to exempt non-profit and government entities? > > MICE is a cooperative exchange. Every member should be treated the same. > > If you'd like to support non-profits and governmental entities, you are > free to pay their fees. Don't force others to pay somebody else's fair > share. > > > > ------------------------------ > > 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 >

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by Asp, David

From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Asp, David Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:02 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Candidate Question My opinion working for a county government is that every one should be treated equally. David Asp Network Collaboration Engineer Dakota County Government Center 1590 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033 Office: 651-438-4271 From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Howard Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:52 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET<mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Candidate Question On 09/07/2016 02:39 PM, James Renken wrote: On Sep 7, 2016, at 08:33, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET><mailto:jayhanke@NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: Up to this point MICE has been fairly successful without any required port fees for members. There have been minor difficulties paying hardware support and annual ARIN fees. We have reached a long-term (5 year) agreement with Cologix to continue the existing no cost relationship for space and power. Do you see the finical current model as sustainable for MICE? What changes would you suggest on the business side? I’m not sure we can stay with our current model over the long term. We can rely on our great (and mutually beneficial) relationship with Cologix for space and power, but I don’t think we can assume we’ll always be able to get financial or hardware donations, especially on short notice. The industry is only getting more challenging; we should work towards self-sufficiency. That would mean port fees. I think we should base port fees on our budget: ARIN fees, hardware support, and accumulating enough savings to replace our core switch with a newer, refurbished model by the end of its useful life. We should also plan to gradually save extra for emergencies like legal fees; I agree with Owen, saving over a period of maybe five years. I’d also like to consider whether we should exempt non-profit and government entities from port fees. There are few enough that it doesn’t seem like a large burden for the rest of us. Why would we want to exempt non-profit and government entities? MICE is a cooperative exchange. Every member should be treated the same. If you'd like to support non-profits and governmental entities, you are free to pay their fees. Don't force others to pay somebody else's fair share. ________________________________ 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

Sept. 7, 2016

Re: Candidate Question

by Asp, David

My opinion working for a county government is that very one should be treated equally. David Asp Network Collaboration Engineer Dakota County Government Center 1590 Highway 55, Hastings, MN 55033 Office: 651-438-4271 From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Howard Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 2:52 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Candidate Question On 09/07/2016 02:39 PM, James Renken wrote: On Sep 7, 2016, at 08:33, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET><mailto:jayhanke@NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: Up to this point MICE has been fairly successful without any required port fees for members. There have been minor difficulties paying hardware support and annual ARIN fees. We have reached a long-term (5 year) agreement with Cologix to continue the existing no cost relationship for space and power. Do you see the finical current model as sustainable for MICE? What changes would you suggest on the business side? I’m not sure we can stay with our current model over the long term. We can rely on our great (and mutually beneficial) relationship with Cologix for space and power, but I don’t think we can assume we’ll always be able to get financial or hardware donations, especially on short notice. The industry is only getting more challenging; we should work towards self-sufficiency. That would mean port fees. I think we should base port fees on our budget: ARIN fees, hardware support, and accumulating enough savings to replace our core switch with a newer, refurbished model by the end of its useful life. We should also plan to gradually save extra for emergencies like legal fees; I agree with Owen, saving over a period of maybe five years. I’d also like to consider whether we should exempt non-profit and government entities from port fees. There are few enough that it doesn’t seem like a large burden for the rest of us. Why would we want to exempt non-profit and government entities? MICE is a cooperative exchange. Every member should be treated the same. If you'd like to support non-profits and governmental entities, you are free to pay their fees. Don't force others to pay somebody else's fair share. ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Sept. 7, 2016