- mice-discuss - lists.micemn.net

Re: One-time port fees

by Andrew Hoyos

I found this from 2012 in the archives. Could the board take a crack at this with updated data, and send along for input to members? I think this will paint a good picture of what the actual costs are. > On Jun 16, 2016, at 2:35 PM, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > +1 on this. Discussing port fees is irrelevant until it’s understood what needs to go back out opex wise (perhaps including some 5-7 year equipment refresh, etc). I seem to recall a spreadsheet that had this broken out at some point, floating around. > > > -- > Andrew Hoyos > hoyosa(a)gmail.com > > > >> On Jun 16, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)AKAMAI.COM> wrote: >> >> >> Why don't you start with a budget and then fund it? Maybe thats $50 per user. Maybe not. Did we ever kick out an operating budget? I'd guess yes. >> >> Port expense is not the killer here. Its cash flow and opex. >> >> >> >> On Jun 16, 2016, at 15:28, Steve Howard <showard(a)PAULBUNYAN.NET> wrote: >> >>> Here is a starting point for a discussion: >>> >>> 1Gbps $200/month >>> 10Gbps $1000/year >>> >>> Everybody invoiced ANNUALLY. First year/partial year free. i.e. Whoever is active on January 1 gets a bill. >>> >>> All amounts are suggested donations (for now). i.e. You won't be disconnected if you don't pay (yet). However that could change at any time. Especially if we run out of ports, in that case the members who have historically paid for their port(s) take precedence over those who haven't. >>> >>> End users of remote switches pay as above. Remote switches do not pay as long as their end users pay enough to make up for the ports used by the remote switch. For example, the CNS switch has 3x10Gbps ports connecting to the main MICE switch. The five CNS end users pay $1,000 each, this covers the $3,000 cost of the three ports to the CNS switch. If CNS has only two users paying $1,000 each, then CNS would owe $1,000. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 06/16/2016 01:53 PM, Jason Hanke wrote: >>>> I'm quietly awaiting a counter proposal... >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net> wrote: >>>> SIX also has a ton of donations coming in. They were a VERY early exchange out there. They did what they did VERY well, and we use some of their structure in MICE. But lets not think that single one time port fees would suddenly make us golden. >>>> >>>> Reid >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> wrote: >>>> There was quite a bit of talk regarding port fees at NANOG earlier this week. >>>> >>>> There was also seemingly universal accolades going to the SiX in Seattle. >>>> >>>> Here is the schedule of fees at the SiX: >>>> >>>> https://www.seattleix.net/join >>>> >>>> This may be a reasonable starting point for MICE. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jay Hanke >>>> CTO >>>> Neutral Path Communications >>>> 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 >>>> Mankato, MN 56001 >>>> (507) 327-2398 mobile >>>> jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net >>>> www.neutralpath.net >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >>>> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Reid Fishler >>>> Director >>>> Hurricane Electric >>>> +1-510-580-4178 >>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >>>> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jay Hanke >>>> CTO >>>> Neutral Path Communications >>>> 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 >>>> Mankato, MN 56001 >>>> (507) 327-2398 mobile >>>> jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net >>>> www.neutralpath.net >>>> >>>> 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 >> >

June 16, 2016

Re: One-time port fees

by Andrew Hoyos

+1 on this. Discussing port fees is irrelevant until it’s understood what needs to go back out opex wise (perhaps including some 5-7 year equipment refresh, etc). I seem to recall a spreadsheet that had this broken out at some point, floating around. -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On Jun 16, 2016, at 2:31 PM, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)AKAMAI.COM> wrote: > > > Why don't you start with a budget and then fund it? Maybe thats $50 per user. Maybe not. Did we ever kick out an operating budget? I'd guess yes. > > Port expense is not the killer here. Its cash flow and opex. > > > > On Jun 16, 2016, at 15:28, Steve Howard <showard(a)PAULBUNYAN.NET> wrote: > >> Here is a starting point for a discussion: >> >> 1Gbps $200/month >> 10Gbps $1000/year >> >> Everybody invoiced ANNUALLY. First year/partial year free. i.e. Whoever is active on January 1 gets a bill. >> >> All amounts are suggested donations (for now). i.e. You won't be disconnected if you don't pay (yet). However that could change at any time. Especially if we run out of ports, in that case the members who have historically paid for their port(s) take precedence over those who haven't. >> >> End users of remote switches pay as above. Remote switches do not pay as long as their end users pay enough to make up for the ports used by the remote switch. For example, the CNS switch has 3x10Gbps ports connecting to the main MICE switch. The five CNS end users pay $1,000 each, this covers the $3,000 cost of the three ports to the CNS switch. If CNS has only two users paying $1,000 each, then CNS would owe $1,000. >> >> >> >> >> >> On 06/16/2016 01:53 PM, Jason Hanke wrote: >>> I'm quietly awaiting a counter proposal... >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net> wrote: >>> SIX also has a ton of donations coming in. They were a VERY early exchange out there. They did what they did VERY well, and we use some of their structure in MICE. But lets not think that single one time port fees would suddenly make us golden. >>> >>> Reid >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> wrote: >>> There was quite a bit of talk regarding port fees at NANOG earlier this week. >>> >>> There was also seemingly universal accolades going to the SiX in Seattle. >>> >>> Here is the schedule of fees at the SiX: >>> >>> https://www.seattleix.net/join >>> >>> This may be a reasonable starting point for MICE. >>> >>> -- >>> Jay Hanke >>> CTO >>> Neutral Path Communications >>> 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 >>> Mankato, MN 56001 >>> (507) 327-2398 mobile >>> jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net >>> www.neutralpath.net >>> >>> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >>> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Reid Fishler >>> Director >>> Hurricane Electric >>> +1-510-580-4178 >>> >>> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >>> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jay Hanke >>> CTO >>> Neutral Path Communications >>> 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 >>> Mankato, MN 56001 >>> (507) 327-2398 mobile >>> jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net >>> www.neutralpath.net >>> >>> 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 >

June 16, 2016

Re: One-time port fees

by Steve Howard

June 16, 2016

Re: One-time port fees

by Hannigan, Martin

Why don't you start with a budget and then fund it? Maybe thats $50 per user. Maybe not. Did we ever kick out an operating budget? I'd guess yes. Port expense is not the killer here. Its cash flow and opex. On Jun 16, 2016, at 15:28, Steve Howard <showard(a)PAULBUNYAN.NET<mailto:showard@paulbunyan.net>> wrote: Here is a starting point for a discussion: 1Gbps $200/month 10Gbps $1000/year Everybody invoiced ANNUALLY. First year/partial year free. i.e. Whoever is active on January 1 gets a bill. All amounts are suggested donations (for now). i.e. You won't be disconnected if you don't pay (yet). However that could change at any time. Especially if we run out of ports, in that case the members who have historically paid for their port(s) take precedence over those who haven't. End users of remote switches pay as above. Remote switches do not pay as long as their end users pay enough to make up for the ports used by the remote switch. For example, the CNS switch has 3x10Gbps ports connecting to the main MICE switch. The five CNS end users pay $1,000 each, this covers the $3,000 cost of the three ports to the CNS switch. If CNS has only two users paying $1,000 each, then CNS would owe $1,000. On 06/16/2016 01:53 PM, Jason Hanke wrote: I'm quietly awaiting a counter proposal... On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net<mailto:rfishler@he.net>> wrote: SIX also has a ton of donations coming in. They were a VERY early exchange out there. They did what they did VERY well, and we use some of their structure in MICE. But lets not think that single one time port fees would suddenly make us golden. Reid On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net<mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net>> wrote: There was quite a bit of talk regarding port fees at NANOG earlier this week. There was also seemingly universal accolades going to the SiX in Seattle. Here is the schedule of fees at the SiX: https://www.seattleix.net/join<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.seattleix.net_join…> This may be a reasonable starting point for MICE. -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398<tel:%28507%29%20327-2398> mobile <mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net>jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net<mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neutralpath.net&d=D…>www.neutralpath.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neutralpath.net&d=D…> ________________________________ 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…> -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178<tel:%2B1-510-580-4178> ________________________________ 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…> -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile <mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net>jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net<mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neutralpath.net&d=D…>www.neutralpath.net<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.neutralpath.net&d=D…> ________________________________ 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…>

June 16, 2016

Re: One-time port fees

by Reid Fishler

Hopefully there is news about the NFP status at the board/usergroup meeting, that I hope you all will be at next week! Reid On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > Here is a starting point for a discussion: > > 1Gbps $200/month > 10Gbps $1000/year > > Everybody invoiced ANNUALLY. First year/partial year free. i.e. Whoever > is active on January 1 gets a bill. > > All amounts are suggested donations (for now). i.e. You won't be > disconnected if you don't pay (yet). However that could change at any > time. Especially if we run out of ports, in that case the members who have > historically paid for their port(s) take precedence over those who haven't. > > End users of remote switches pay as above. Remote switches do not pay as > long as their end users pay enough to make up for the ports used by the > remote switch. For example, the CNS switch has 3x10Gbps ports connecting > to the main MICE switch. The five CNS end users pay $1,000 each, this > covers the $3,000 cost of the three ports to the CNS switch. If CNS has > only two users paying $1,000 each, then CNS would owe $1,000. > > > > > > > On 06/16/2016 01:53 PM, Jason Hanke wrote: > > I'm quietly awaiting a counter proposal... > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net> wrote: > >> SIX also has a ton of donations coming in. They were a VERY early >> exchange out there. They did what they did VERY well, and we use some of >> their structure in MICE. But lets not think that single one time port fees >> would suddenly make us golden. >> >> Reid >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> >> wrote: >> >>> There was quite a bit of talk regarding port fees at NANOG earlier this >>> week. >>> >>> There was also seemingly universal accolades going to the SiX in Seattle. >>> >>> Here is the schedule of fees at the SiX: >>> >>> https://www.seattleix.net/join >>> >>> This may be a reasonable starting point for MICE. >>> >>> -- >>> Jay Hanke >>> CTO >>> Neutral Path Communications >>> 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 >>> Mankato, MN 56001 >>> (507) 327-2398 <%28507%29%20327-2398> mobile >>> <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net>jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net >>> <http://www.neutralpath.net>www.neutralpath.net >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >>> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Reid Fishler >> Director >> Hurricane Electric >> +1-510-580-4178 >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >> > > > > -- > Jay Hanke > CTO > Neutral Path Communications > 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 > Mankato, MN 56001 > (507) 327-2398 mobile > <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net>jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net > <http://www.neutralpath.net>www.neutralpath.net > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

June 16, 2016

Re: One-time port fees

by Jeremy Lumby

Do you mean 1Gbps $200/year ? From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Howard Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 2:28 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] One-time port fees Here is a starting point for a discussion: 1Gbps $200/month 10Gbps $1000/year Everybody invoiced ANNUALLY. First year/partial year free. i.e. Whoever is active on January 1 gets a bill. All amounts are suggested donations (for now). i.e. You won't be disconnected if you don't pay (yet). However that could change at any time. Especially if we run out of ports, in that case the members who have historically paid for their port(s) take precedence over those who haven't. End users of remote switches pay as above. Remote switches do not pay as long as their end users pay enough to make up for the ports used by the remote switch. For example, the CNS switch has 3x10Gbps ports connecting to the main MICE switch. The five CNS end users pay $1,000 each, this covers the $3,000 cost of the three ports to the CNS switch. If CNS has only two users paying $1,000 each, then CNS would owe $1,000. On 06/16/2016 01:53 PM, Jason Hanke wrote: I'm quietly awaiting a counter proposal... On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net> wrote: SIX also has a ton of donations coming in. They were a VERY early exchange out there. They did what they did VERY well, and we use some of their structure in MICE. But lets not think that single one time port fees would suddenly make us golden. Reid On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> wrote: There was quite a bit of talk regarding port fees at NANOG earlier this week. There was also seemingly universal accolades going to the SiX in Seattle. Here is the schedule of fees at the SiX: https://www.seattleix.net/join This may be a reasonable starting point for MICE. -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178 To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net 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

June 16, 2016

Re: One-time port fees

by Steve Howard

June 16, 2016

Re: One-time port fees

by Jason Hanke

I'm quietly awaiting a counter proposal... On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 1:46 PM, Reid Fishler <rfishler(a)he.net> wrote: > SIX also has a ton of donations coming in. They were a VERY early exchange > out there. They did what they did VERY well, and we use some of their > structure in MICE. But lets not think that single one time port fees would > suddenly make us golden. > > Reid > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> > wrote: > >> There was quite a bit of talk regarding port fees at NANOG earlier this >> week. >> >> There was also seemingly universal accolades going to the SiX in Seattle. >> >> Here is the schedule of fees at the SiX: >> >> https://www.seattleix.net/join >> >> This may be a reasonable starting point for MICE. >> >> -- >> Jay Hanke >> CTO >> Neutral Path Communications >> 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 >> Mankato, MN 56001 >> (507) 327-2398 mobile >> jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net >> www.neutralpath.net >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 >> > > > > -- > Reid Fishler > Director > Hurricane Electric > +1-510-580-4178 > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

June 16, 2016

Re: One-time port fees

by Dean Bahls

I’ve typically been pretty silent on matters of MICE, but we at CNS are very supportive of the effort and thank everyone for everything they do to keep the exchange working. I’m of the opinion that we should be paying *monthly* fees for ports to keep the exchange solvent. One-time fees are nice, but monthly fees might be necessary. Thanks, Dean From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Reid Fishler Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 1:47 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] One-time port fees SIX also has a ton of donations coming in. They were a VERY early exchange out there. They did what they did VERY well, and we use some of their structure in MICE. But lets not think that single one time port fees would suddenly make us golden. Reid On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net <mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net> > wrote: There was quite a bit of talk regarding port fees at NANOG earlier this week. There was also seemingly universal accolades going to the SiX in Seattle. Here is the schedule of fees at the SiX: https://www.seattleix.net/join This may be a reasonable starting point for MICE. -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 <tel:%28507%29%20327-2398> mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net <mailto:jayhanke@neutralpath.net> www.neutralpath.net <http://www.neutralpath.net> _____ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1> &A=1 -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178 _____ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS <http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1> &A=1

June 16, 2016

Re: One-time port fees

by Reid Fishler

SIX also has a ton of donations coming in. They were a VERY early exchange out there. They did what they did VERY well, and we use some of their structure in MICE. But lets not think that single one time port fees would suddenly make us golden. Reid On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net> wrote: > There was quite a bit of talk regarding port fees at NANOG earlier this > week. > > There was also seemingly universal accolades going to the SiX in Seattle. > > Here is the schedule of fees at the SiX: > > https://www.seattleix.net/join > > This may be a reasonable starting point for MICE. > > -- > Jay Hanke > CTO > Neutral Path Communications > 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 > Mankato, MN 56001 > (507) 327-2398 mobile > jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net > www.neutralpath.net > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > -- Reid Fishler Director Hurricane Electric +1-510-580-4178

June 16, 2016

One-time port fees

by Jason Hanke

There was quite a bit of talk regarding port fees at NANOG earlier this week. There was also seemingly universal accolades going to the SiX in Seattle. Here is the schedule of fees at the SiX: https://www.seattleix.net/join This may be a reasonable starting point for MICE. -- 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

June 16, 2016

Re: Airstream Additional 10G port

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:35:36PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: > Airstream would like to add an additional 10G port. > > I have allocated port xe-2/0/20 on the main switch. This port will > need to be in a LAG group with their existing port xe-0/0/20. Sure, I have LAG ae8 allocated for them, and will put the new port into it for now and co-ordinate a cutover time/process with them. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

June 1, 2016

Airstream Additional 10G port

by Jason Hanke

Airstream would like to add an additional 10G port. I have allocated port xe-2/0/20 on the main switch. This port will need to be in a LAG group with their existing port xe-0/0/20. Charles Monson is the primary contact within WIN. All IP addressing will remain the same. Could the Tech Committee reach out to coordinate. Thanks! -- 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

June 1, 2016

Re: Fwd: Route Server #1 - IPv6

by Nathan Beard

Doug, I had checked my IPv6 ND table prior to submitting my first email, and I still don't see any issues on my side: /RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:STELLAR-511-ASR9006#show ipv6 neighbors te0/1/0/0 | include d1af:0:// //2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 9 0026.b966.2cd8 REACH Te0/1/0/0 0/1/CPU0 // //2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 78 f01f.afdb.a5d5 REACH Te0/1/0/0 0/1/CPU0 / Even with valid ND resolutions I still can only hit the single RR as previously indicated: /RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:STELLAR-511-ASR9006#ping ipv6 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 // //Type escape sequence to abort.// //Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1, timeout is 2 seconds:// //.....// //Success rate is 0 percent (0/5)/ /RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:STELLAR-511-ASR9006#ping ipv6 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2// //Type escape sequence to abort.// //Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2, timeout is 2 seconds:// //!!!!!// //Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms/ I have no IPv6 filtering in place on the interface facing the MICE exchange, and I've verified that I have IPv6 bi-lateral peering sessions up and running to other exchange addresses: /Neighbor Spk AS MsgRcvd MsgSent TblVer InQ OutQ Up/Down St/PfxRcd// //2001:504:27::1055:0:1// // 0 4181 19348 19312 9906063 0 0 6d09h 3// //2001:504:27::4e93:0:1// // 0 20115 19371 19313 9906063 0 0 6d09h 19/ Let me know if you have any other suggestions after taking a look, otherwise I'll continue to troubleshoot my side this afternoon. In any case I'm not sure the entire MICE list needs to be copied on this back and forth since it sounds like there are only a couple affected members... Thanks! On 06/01/16 09:17, Doug McIntyre wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 Nathan Beard <nbeard(a)stellarllc.net> wrote: >> Is there a particular reason why the IPv6 address for route server #1 > .. > > Hmm, it is reachable for me and 30 others on the exchange. There are two > connected to RR#2 via IPv6 that aren't on #1 & you are one of those. > > RR#2 can ping you, but RR#1 gets nothing back. > > FWIW: I don't know of your policies, but I can't ping your IPv6 endpoint > from my (ie. ipHouse) network either, nor can I connect to your endpoint > on the BGP port from RR#1. > > IPv6 NDP on RR#1 can't seem to resolve you, which is probably why pings > and BGP connects don't work. > > Although I do see BGP traffic sessions coming in from you if I > tcpdump, I can't seem to do the neighbor discovery (ie. IPv6 ARP > method) to get your address though. > > 09:05:45.022173 IP6 2001:504:27::8e16:0:1.36711 > 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1.179: Flags [S], seq 1656210645, win 16384, options [mss 1440,wscale 0,eol], length 0 > 09:05:47.023930 IP6 2001:504:27::8e16:0:1.36711 > 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1.179: Flags [S], seq 1656210645, win 16384, options [mss 1440,wscale 0,eol], length 0 > 09:05:51.025407 IP6 2001:504:27::8e16:0:1.36711 > 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1.179: Flags [S], seq 1656210645, win 16384, options [mss 1440,wscale 0,eol], length 0 > 09:05:59.027328 IP6 2001:504:27::8e16:0:1.36711 > 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1.179: Flags [S], seq 1656210645, win 16384, options [mss 1440,wscale 0,eol], length 0 > > But the biggest problem is that RR#1 can't seem to get back to you. > > Could you check your filters for IPv6, particularly with reguard to ND > facing the route servers? There are no filters being run on the RR machines. > (ssh et. al filtering is handled upstream). > -- Nathan Beard Network Engineer nbeard(a)stellarllc.net (218) 820-7636

June 1, 2016

Re: Fwd: Route Server #1 - IPv6

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 Nathan Beard <nbeard(a)stellarllc.net> wrote: > Is there a particular reason why the IPv6 address for route server #1 .. Hmm, it is reachable for me and 30 others on the exchange. There are two connected to RR#2 via IPv6 that aren't on #1 & you are one of those. RR#2 can ping you, but RR#1 gets nothing back. FWIW: I don't know of your policies, but I can't ping your IPv6 endpoint from my (ie. ipHouse) network either, nor can I connect to your endpoint on the BGP port from RR#1. IPv6 NDP on RR#1 can't seem to resolve you, which is probably why pings and BGP connects don't work. Although I do see BGP traffic sessions coming in from you if I tcpdump, I can't seem to do the neighbor discovery (ie. IPv6 ARP method) to get your address though. 09:05:45.022173 IP6 2001:504:27::8e16:0:1.36711 > 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1.179: Flags [S], seq 1656210645, win 16384, options [mss 1440,wscale 0,eol], length 0 09:05:47.023930 IP6 2001:504:27::8e16:0:1.36711 > 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1.179: Flags [S], seq 1656210645, win 16384, options [mss 1440,wscale 0,eol], length 0 09:05:51.025407 IP6 2001:504:27::8e16:0:1.36711 > 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1.179: Flags [S], seq 1656210645, win 16384, options [mss 1440,wscale 0,eol], length 0 09:05:59.027328 IP6 2001:504:27::8e16:0:1.36711 > 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1.179: Flags [S], seq 1656210645, win 16384, options [mss 1440,wscale 0,eol], length 0 But the biggest problem is that RR#1 can't seem to get back to you. Could you check your filters for IPv6, particularly with reguard to ND facing the route servers? There are no filters being run on the RR machines. (ssh et. al filtering is handled upstream). -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

June 1, 2016

Fwd: Route Server #1 - IPv6

by Jason Hanke

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Nathan Beard <nbeard(a)stellarllc.net> Date: Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 8:25 AM Subject: Route Server #1 - IPv6 To: peering(a)micemn.net Is there a particular reason why the IPv6 address for route server #1 is no longer reachable following the upgrades that were completed on the night of the 22nd? My IPv6 peering session to the first route server has been stuck in 'Active' state since right around that time and the IPv6 address is also not directly reachable (while route server #2 works fine): // BGP state for route server #1 session // 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 0 53679 1675496 328107 0 0 0 1w2d Active // Ping to route server #1 // RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:STELLAR-511-ASR9006#ping ipv6 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 2001:504:27::d1af:0:1, timeout is 2 seconds: ..... Success rate is 0 percent (0/5) // Ping to route server #2 // RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:STELLAR-511-ASR9006#ping ipv6 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2 Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 2001:504:27::d1af:0:2, timeout is 2 seconds: !!!!! Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/1/1 ms Please let me know when you have an update. Thanks! -- Nathan Beard Network Engineer nbeard(a)stellarllc.net (218) 820-7636 -- 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

June 1, 2016

Re: www.micemn.net links

by Richard Laager

Thanks everyone for the fixes! I pushed the changes you three sent: On 05/27/2016 12:02 PM, Jonathan Stewart wrote: > http://micemn.net/resources.html > The link to PeeringDB is broken, since peeringDB went to 2.0. > http://micemn.net/history.html > The link to Cologix 511 is broken. On 05/27/2016 01:22 PM, Justin Krejci wrote: > To add onto what Jonathan discovered I've also found the footer nav bar > contains a link to the old PeeringDB URL as well. > > Additionally I found that on the participants page the link to the > Northern Lights Gigapop organization doesn't work. On 05/27/2016 01:33 PM, David Farmer wrote: > For now, please point at > https://it.umn.edu/northern-lights-gigapop-introduction -- Richard

May 27, 2016

Re: www.micemn.net links

by David Farmer

For now, please point at https://it.umn.edu/northern-lights-gigapop-introduction I'll look at getting www.northernlights.gigapop.net redirected there too, but that will probablly take a bit. Thanks. On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Justin Krejci <JKrejci(a)usinternet.com> wrote: > To add onto what Jonathan discovered I've also found the footer nav bar > contains a link to the old PeeringDB URL as well. > > Additionally I found that on the participants page the link to the Northern > Lights Gigapop organization doesn't work. I am not sure if there is a web > server issue at the UMN or if the target URL > (http://www.northernlights.gigapop.net/) is just out of date but I get a TCP > reset when attempting to connect on port 80. > > dig snip > > ;; ANSWER SECTION: > www.northernlights.gigapop.net. 17743 IN CNAME nlg.webhotel.umn.edu. > nlg.webhotel.umn.edu. 17743 IN A 160.94.254.29 > > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Jonathan > Stewart [jonathan.stewart(a)GMAIL.COM] > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 12:02 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] www.micemn.net links > > Hi, > > I was browsing the www.micemn.net site, and tripped over some 404s. > > On this page: > http://micemn.net/resources.html > The link to PeeringDB is broken, since peeringDB went to 2.0. The correct > link is: > https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/446 > > On this page: > http://micemn.net/history.html > The link to Cologix 511 is broken. It seems it should be: > http://www.cologix.com/data-centers/minneapolis/min1/ > > Hope this message reaches the right people, > > Jonathan > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 > > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================

May 27, 2016

Re: www.micemn.net links

by Justin Krejci

To add onto what Jonathan discovered I've also found the footer nav bar contains a link to the old PeeringDB URL as well. Additionally I found that on the participants page the link to the Northern Lights Gigapop organization doesn't work. I am not sure if there is a web server issue at the UMN or if the target URL (http://www.northernlights.gigapop.net/) is just out of date but I get a TCP reset when attempting to connect on port 80. dig snip ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.northernlights.gigapop.net. 17743 IN CNAME nlg.webhotel.umn.edu. nlg.webhotel.umn.edu. 17743 IN A 160.94.254.29 ________________________________ From: MICE Discuss [MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] on behalf of Jonathan Stewart [jonathan.stewart(a)GMAIL.COM] Sent: Friday, May 27, 2016 12:02 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] www.micemn.net links Hi, I was browsing the www.micemn.net<http://www.micemn.net> site, and tripped over some 404s. On this page: http://micemn.net/resources.html The link to PeeringDB is broken, since peeringDB went to 2.0. The correct link is: https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/446 On this page: http://micemn.net/history.html The link to Cologix 511 is broken. It seems it should be: http://www.cologix.com/data-centers/minneapolis/min1/ Hope this message reaches the right people, Jonathan ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

May 27, 2016

www.micemn.net links

by Jonathan Stewart

Hi, I was browsing the www.micemn.net site, and tripped over some 404s. On this page: http://micemn.net/resources.html The link to PeeringDB is broken, since peeringDB went to 2.0. The correct link is: https://www.peeringdb.com/ix/446 On this page: http://micemn.net/history.html The link to Cologix 511 is broken. It seems it should be: http://www.cologix.com/data-centers/minneapolis/min1/ Hope this message reaches the right people, Jonathan

May 27, 2016

Re: Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Andrew Hoyos

> On May 22, 2016, at 11:40 PM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > > This maintenance is complete. > > *) Community phase1 support with MICE community stripping at the end > *) OS patches & software updates. Fully up to date now. Thanks Doug! This will be super helpful for the community (pun intended)! -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com

May 23, 2016

Re: Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Mike Horwath

On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:40:57PM -0500, Doug McIntyre wrote: > This maintenance is complete. Awesome! -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

May 23, 2016

Re: Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:11:38AM -0500, Doug McIntyre wrote: > I plan on implementing this MICE site wide on Sunday, 5/22/2016, starting at > around 10:00PM - 11:59PM. This maintenance is complete. *) Community phase1 support with MICE community stripping at the end *) OS patches & software updates. Fully up to date now. Everything looks good to me, number of routes roughly the same start to finish, traffic load is swinging down, but it does this time of night as well. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

May 23, 2016

Re: Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Richard Laager

I've pushed the changes. I did reword the descriptions, and added some explanatory prose, with examples. Feedback and/or patches are always welcome. http://micemn.net/technical.html I wonder if I should break out the port configuration stuff and the communities into separate pages. I'm not sure which is worse: a longer page or another level of pages/links. -- Richard

May 19, 2016

interesting anti-spam technique

by Mike Horwath

That died about 15 years ago :) ... <HTML><BODY><BIG>Sender Address Authentication </BIG> This email address is protected by a system that requires a simple, one-time authentication of new senders. To authenticate your email address and immediately deliver your email, <A href="http://m.USGOauth.net/_val?:cleared-this-variable-so-it-isn't-resent">click this link</A> There is no need to re-send your original email as long as you click the link within one week. If you have trouble making the link work, please notify system administrators by replying to this email. Refer to the message headers below if you have questions about the authenticity of this notification. =============================================================================== <PRE> Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 17:49:57 +0000 From: Chris Wopat <wopat(a)WISCNET.NET> ... LISTSERV didn't catch this unfortunately. I have released the email in question. I really didn't think anyone used callback verification anymore and was surprised. -- Mike Horwath, reachable via drechsau(a)Geeks.ORG

May 18, 2016

Re: Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Mike Horwath

> On May 18, 2016, at 11:34, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)AITECH.NET> wrote: > > Doug & Chih, Thanks for your efforts on this. > > Mike H, can you post to MICE-ANNOUNCE? Of course! -- Mike Horwath via iPad.

May 18, 2016

Re: Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Steve Howard

May 18, 2016

Re: Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Chris Wopat

The idea is to ONLY clear these specific action communities, leaving all other communities alone. -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

May 18, 2016

Re: Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Andrew Hoyos

Chris is referring to deleting the communities that the route server is using to take action (i.e.: it should be transparent in that regard and not leak communities). The original example I had sent on how to do this in Bird has this as part of it as well, and would be considered standard and best practice. These shouldn’t be leaked back and forth between participants. see: https://gitlab.labs.nic.cz/labs/bird/wikis/Route_server_with_community_base… function bgp_out(int peeras) { if !bgp_out_comm(peeras) then return false; # Remove IXP related communities bgp_community.delete([(0,*)]); bgp_community.delete([(myas,*)]); bgp_ext_community.delete([(ro,0,*)]); bgp_ext_community.delete([(ro,myas,*)]); return true; } -- Andrew Hoyos hoyosa(a)gmail.com > On May 18, 2016, at 1:00 PM, Steve Howard <showard(a)paulbunyan.net> wrote: > > Like I said. Perhaps I don't understand the question... > > I understand the statement "If an IX participant wants to control traffic directly with another peer, they would work with that participant to use their possibly pre existing action communities." But, how will that work if all communities are cleared by the route servers? Or are you saying only strip the communities that the route server uses to take action? > > > On 05/18/2016 12:49 PM, Chris Wopat wrote: >> The route servers are performing the action of not advertising. It shouldn't be on all IX participants to perform action on these communities or they wouldn't work as intended. >> >> If an IX participant wants to control traffic directly with another peer, they would work with that participant to use their possibly pre existing action communities. >> >> -- >> Chris Wopat >> Network Engineer, WiscNet >> wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965 >> >> From: Steve Howard <showard(a)PAULBUNYAN.NET> >> Sent: May 18, 2016 12:23 PM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016 >> >> On 05/18/2016 12:03 PM, Chris Wopat wrote: >>> On 05/18/2016 11:53 AM, Doug McIntyre wrote: >>>> Would you want the export function to >>>> clear any communities it had at the end? (Something that is NOT done >>>> right now). >>> >>> Yes, I would consider it standard practice to clear action communities after the action was taken so they don't propagate/leak beyond AS 53679. >>> >>> IX members may wish to filter them on import as well [1]. Both is probably the most sane outcome. >>> >>> [1] - ras's BGP community presentation is always good to review - https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog40/presentations/BGPcommunities.pdf >>> >>> >> >> Perhaps I don't understand the specific question? But, I would prefer that the communities not be stripped. If they are stripped, how would we pass action communities onto other MICE members that require action on their networks? Perhaps just strip out the 53679:* communities would be a better choice? >> >> 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 >

May 18, 2016

Re: Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Richard Laager

It seems pretty obvious to me that the route servers shouldn't clear ALL communities. Whether they need to clear 53679:* is another question. -- Richard

May 18, 2016

Re: Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Steve Howard

May 18, 2016

Re: Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Chris Wopat

The route servers are performing the action of not advertising. It shouldn't be on all IX participants to perform action on these communities or they wouldn't work as intended. If an IX participant wants to control traffic directly with another peer, they would work with that participant to use their possibly pre existing action communities. -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965 ________________________________ From: Steve Howard <showard(a)PAULBUNYAN.NET> Sent: May 18, 2016 12:23 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016 On 05/18/2016 12:03 PM, Chris Wopat wrote: On 05/18/2016 11:53 AM, Doug McIntyre wrote: Would you want the export function to clear any communities it had at the end? (Something that is NOT done right now). Yes, I would consider it standard practice to clear action communities after the action was taken so they don't propagate/leak beyond AS 53679. IX members may wish to filter them on import as well [1]. Both is probably the most sane outcome. [1] - ras's BGP community presentation is always good to review - https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog40/presentations/BGPcommunities.pdf Perhaps I don't understand the specific question? But, I would prefer that the communities not be stripped. If they are stripped, how would we pass action communities onto other MICE members that require action on their networks? Perhaps just strip out the 53679:* communities would be a better choice? ________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

May 18, 2016

Re: Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Steve Howard

May 18, 2016

Re: Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Chris Wopat

On 05/18/2016 11:53 AM, Doug McIntyre wrote: > Would you want the export function to > clear any communities it had at the end? (Something that is NOT done > right now). Yes, I would consider it standard practice to clear action communities after the action was taken so they don't propagate/leak beyond AS 53679. IX members may wish to filter them on import as well [1]. Both is probably the most sane outcome. [1] - ras's BGP community presentation is always good to review - https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog40/presentations/BGPcommunities.pdf -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

May 18, 2016

Re: Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Doug McIntyre

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:30:25AM -0500, Chris Wopat wrote: > Is it possible to see examples of the config? Or at least verify that these > communities are stripped out on the route server after the action is taken? Here's what I'm doing now function bgp_out_comm(int peeras) { if ! (source = RTS_BGP ) then return false; if peeras > 65535 then { if (ro,0,peeras) ~ bgp_ext_community then return false; if (ro,MICEAS,peeras) ~ bgp_ext_community then return true; if ((ro,0,MICEAS) ~ bgp_ext_community) then return false; } else { if ((0,peeras) ~ bgp_community) || ((ro,0,peeras) ~ bgp_ext_community) then return false; if ((MICEAS,peeras) ~ bgp_community) || ((ro,MICEAS,peeras) ~ bgp_ext_community) then return true; if ((0, MICEAS) ~ bgp_community) || ((ro,0,MICEAS) ~ bgp_ext_community) then return false; } return true; } The route server would need to keep the community state, this is the export function per peer back out. So I guess I'm not understanding the last part of the request. Would you want the export function to clear any communities it had at the end? (Something that is NOT done right now). -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

May 18, 2016

Re: Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Richard Laager

> On May 18, 2016, at 11:34, Matthew Beckwell <matthewb(a)AITECH.NET> wrote: > > maybe we can convince Richard to throw up a section on the micemn.net technical page that lists the communities? :) Yes, will do. I have a few updates pending from the new members in the last couple days. I should have this all done in a few hours. -- Richard

May 18, 2016

Re: Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Matthew Beckwell

Doug & Chih, Thanks for your efforts on this. Mike H, can you post to MICE-ANNOUNCE? And maybe we can convince Richard to throw up a section on the micemn.net technical page that lists the communities? :) Thanks guys. ~Matthew On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> wrote: > Thanks to Chih Chen's help at the U of Wisc, I have testing done for > phase1 of the BGP communities exporting that have been requested. > (Phase2 would be doing prepends, but I'll have to lab up that > functionality as I saw the export function grow 10 times or so before I > stopped). > Most of the delay was waiting for others to test with me. > > I plan on implementing this MICE site wide on Sunday, 5/22/2016, starting > at > around 10:00PM - 11:59PM. > > All the testing looked good to us during testing, the functions > behaved as expected. This function is an expansion of what was tested > before. > ipHouse has had this export function on it since the end of winter. > > It is written to properly handle 32-bit ASNs (I believe, that part was > provided > by the BIRD WIKI author). And of course IPv4 and IPv6 make no difference. > > The communities supported by this setup will include > > 0:peerAS -- Don't export route prefix to this peer. > 53679:peerAS -- Always export route prefix to this peer. > 0:53679 -- Don't export route prefix to all MICE peers. > > > The steps of actually implementing this would be non-eventful, but I know > some will want to drop for it. > > > > ALSO, we really should upgrade the OS that is running the route > servers too. So I'll be doing OS updates and other upgrades that will > upgrade BIRD as well in the same window. BIRD moves from > 1.4.5 -> 1.5.0. The release notes say it mostly is OSPF changes, > I expect no problems in this update, BIRD has been very stable, and the OS > has been stable in production use here. > > Thanks. > > -- > Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> > ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ > Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades >

May 18, 2016

Re: Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Chris Wopat

On 05/18/2016 11:11 AM, Doug McIntyre wrote: > Thanks to Chih Chen's help at the U of Wisc, I have testing done for > phase1 of the BGP communities exporting that have been requested. > (Phase2 would be doing prepends, but I'll have to lab up that > functionality as I saw the export function grow 10 times or so before I stopped). > Most of the delay was waiting for others to test with me. > > I plan on implementing this MICE site wide on Sunday, 5/22/2016, starting at > around 10:00PM - 11:59PM. > > All the testing looked good to us during testing, the functions > behaved as expected. This function is an expansion of what was tested before. > ipHouse has had this export function on it since the end of winter. > > It is written to properly handle 32-bit ASNs (I believe, that part was provided > by the BIRD WIKI author). And of course IPv4 and IPv6 make no difference. > > The communities supported by this setup will include > > 0:peerAS -- Don't export route prefix to this peer. > 53679:peerAS -- Always export route prefix to this peer. > 0:53679 -- Don't export route prefix to all MICE peers. > > > The steps of actually implementing this would be non-eventful, but I know > some will want to drop for it. > > > > ALSO, we really should upgrade the OS that is running the route > servers too. So I'll be doing OS updates and other upgrades that will > upgrade BIRD as well in the same window. BIRD moves from > 1.4.5 -> 1.5.0. The release notes say it mostly is OSPF changes, > I expect no problems in this update, BIRD has been very stable, and the OS > has been stable in production use here. Great work folks, glad to see this coming in to production. Is it possible to see examples of the config? Or at least verify that these communities are stripped out on the route server after the action is taken? Cheers, -- Chris Wopat Network Engineer, WiscNet wopat(a)wiscnet.net 608-210-3965

May 18, 2016

Route Server BGP communities (& OS upgrades) - 5/22/2016

by Doug McIntyre

Thanks to Chih Chen's help at the U of Wisc, I have testing done for phase1 of the BGP communities exporting that have been requested. (Phase2 would be doing prepends, but I'll have to lab up that functionality as I saw the export function grow 10 times or so before I stopped). Most of the delay was waiting for others to test with me. I plan on implementing this MICE site wide on Sunday, 5/22/2016, starting at around 10:00PM - 11:59PM. All the testing looked good to us during testing, the functions behaved as expected. This function is an expansion of what was tested before. ipHouse has had this export function on it since the end of winter. It is written to properly handle 32-bit ASNs (I believe, that part was provided by the BIRD WIKI author). And of course IPv4 and IPv6 make no difference. The communities supported by this setup will include 0:peerAS -- Don't export route prefix to this peer. 53679:peerAS -- Always export route prefix to this peer. 0:53679 -- Don't export route prefix to all MICE peers. The steps of actually implementing this would be non-eventful, but I know some will want to drop for it. ALSO, we really should upgrade the OS that is running the route servers too. So I'll be doing OS updates and other upgrades that will upgrade BIRD as well in the same window. BIRD moves from 1.4.5 -> 1.5.0. The release notes say it mostly is OSPF changes, I expect no problems in this update, BIRD has been very stable, and the OS has been stable in production use here. Thanks. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

May 18, 2016

Re: Please welcome NebraskaLink to MICE

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 05:57:42PM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: > Name: NebraskaLink > ASN: 16851 > Port: NP MSP1 Remote xe-0/0/3 > IPv4: 206.108.255.70/24 > IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:41d3::1/64 > Contact: noc(a)nebraskalink.com > > Route Servers and website please! > > Welcome aboard! Sure thing, I have the route servers setup for this entry, ready to go. -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

May 18, 2016

Re: Please welcome NebraskaLink to MICE

by Hannigan, Martin

Wow! Lots of MICEicles today!! Welcome everyone! > On May 17, 2016, at 18:57, Jason Hanke <jayhanke(a)NEUTRALPATH.NET> wrote: > > Name: NebraskaLink > ASN: 16851 > Port: NP MSP1 Remote xe-0/0/3 > IPv4: 206.108.255.70/24 > IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:41d3::1/64 > Contact: noc(a)nebraskalink.com > > Route Servers and website please! > > Welcome aboard! > > -- > Jay Hanke > CTO > Neutral Path Communications > 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 > Mankato, MN 56001 > (507) 327-2398 mobile > jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net > www.neutralpath.net

May 17, 2016

Please welcome NebraskaLink to MICE

by Jason Hanke

Name: NebraskaLink ASN: 16851 Port: NP MSP1 Remote xe-0/0/3 IPv4: 206.108.255.70/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:41d3::1/64 Contact: noc(a)nebraskalink.com Route Servers and website please! Welcome aboard! -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

May 17, 2016

Re: Please welcome Paragon Solutions Group to MICE

by Doug McIntyre

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 09:36:33AM -0500, Jason Hanke wrote: > Name: Paragon Solutions Group > Port: ge-2/0/9 (main switch ex4550) > ASN: 55043 > IPv4: 206.108.255.57/24 > IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:d703::1/64 > Contact: chris.dye(a)paragon.net > > Route Server and website updates please. Sure, had to do some switch work too, as I'm assuming all fiber ports are all 10Gbps now, but we don't have any 1G only fiber ports left. Got them in the route servers too. All set to go. Welcome aboard! -- Doug McIntyre <merlyn(a)iphouse.net> ~.~ ipHouse ~.~ Network Engineer/Provisioning/Jack of all Trades

May 17, 2016

MICE Facebook Page

by Jason Hanke

We have a Facebook page! Like it! https://www.facebook.com/MNMICE/ We also have a Facebook event for MICE UG20 in Eau Claire! https://www.facebook.com/events/695794023896344/ -- 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

May 17, 2016

Please welcome Paragon Solutions Group to MICE

by Jason Hanke

Name: Paragon Solutions Group Port: ge-2/0/9 (main switch ex4550) ASN: 55043 IPv4: 206.108.255.57/24 IPv6: 2001:504:27:0:0:d703::1/64 Contact: chris.dye(a)paragon.net Route Server and website updates please. Paragon will provide an SFP to Cologix for installation. Welcome aboard! -- Jay Hanke CTO Neutral Path Communications 3 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 204 Mankato, MN 56001 (507) 327-2398 mobile jayhanke(a)neutralpath.net www.neutralpath.net

May 17, 2016

Please welcome Stealth Broadband to MICE!

by Jason Hanke

Name: Stealth Broadband ASN: TBD in Arin process now port: NP-MSP1 ge-0/0/2 IPv4: 206.108.255.69/24 IPv6: Pending ASN Contact: James.urwiller(a)stealthbroadband.com Please update the website at this time. They will be using the MICE connection to meet the multihoming requirements. We can update the other elements following the ASN assignment. Thanks! -- 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

May 12, 2016

Re: Update for Akamai (AS 20940) < > MICE

by Hannigan, Martin

All, I did look and we have received your requests. They will be taken care of shortly. Apologies for the delay. Best,, Marty > On May 9, 2016, at 21:38, Hannigan, Martin <marty(a)akamai.com> wrote: > > > Ill take a look in the queue. > > Thanks > > > > >> On May 9, 2016, at 21:09, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)GMAIL.COM> wrote: >> >> Likewise here, crickets…… >> >> >>> On May 9, 2016, at 9:05 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: >>> >>> Has anyone heard back from peering(a)akamai.com ? It has been almost 2 weeks, my bi-lateral peering request has gone unanswered, and the session I built for them is not established. I know Marty mentioned they were working on some things, however I have not even gotten a reply acknowledging my emails. >>> >>> Jeremy >>> >>> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 9:34 PM >>> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >>> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Update for Akamai (AS 20940) < > MICE >>> >>> >>> Greetings everyone. And Reid. :-) >>> >>> Our implementation is proceeding and we’re projecting that we’ll be moving bits back to the exchange in the next few weeks. >>> >>> Unfortunately, we’re dropping our route server sessions permanently. Everyone who is now route server only will need to established bi lateral peering. Send your peering request to peering(a)akamai.com with the requisite details (ASN, peer addresses). If you had a direct session previously, we have not forgotten it and there’s no need to restate. Traffic will return slowly, first with our SSL bits and then full on edge a few weeks after that. >>> >>> Thanks for your patience and for helping to build a better Internet in MSP. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Martin Hannigan // AS 20940 // AS 32787 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >>> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

May 12, 2016

Re: Update for Akamai (AS 20940) < > MICE

by Jeff Anderson

Same boat here as well. Jeff Anderson jeffa(a)implex.net 612.799.7277 Cell 612.339.8255 x200 Office 612.339.3310 Fax -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Jeremy Lumby Sent: Monday, May 9, 2016 9:05 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Update for Akamai (AS 20940) < > MICE Has anyone heard back from peering(a)akamai.com ? It has been almost 2 weeks, my bi-lateral peering request has gone unanswered, and the session I built for them is not established. I know Marty mentioned they were working on some things, however I have not even gotten a reply acknowledging my emails. Jeremy From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 9:34 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Update for Akamai (AS 20940) < > MICE Greetings everyone. And Reid. :-) Our implementation is proceeding and we’re projecting that we’ll be moving bits back to the exchange in the next few weeks. Unfortunately, we’re dropping our route server sessions permanently. Everyone who is now route server only will need to established bi lateral peering. Send your peering request to peering(a)akamai.com with the requisite details (ASN, peer addresses). If you had a direct session previously, we have not forgotten it and there’s no need to restate. Traffic will return slowly, first with our SSL bits and then full on edge a few weeks after that. Thanks for your patience and for helping to build a better Internet in MSP. Best, Martin Hannigan // AS 20940 // AS 32787 ________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

May 10, 2016

Re: Update for Akamai (AS 20940) < > MICE

by Hannigan, Martin

Ill take a look in the queue. Thanks > On May 9, 2016, at 21:09, Andrew Hoyos <hoyosa(a)GMAIL.COM> wrote: > > Likewise here, crickets…… > > >> On May 9, 2016, at 9:05 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: >> >> Has anyone heard back from peering(a)akamai.com ? It has been almost 2 weeks, my bi-lateral peering request has gone unanswered, and the session I built for them is not established. I know Marty mentioned they were working on some things, however I have not even gotten a reply acknowledging my emails. >> >> Jeremy >> >> From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin >> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 9:34 PM >> To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET >> Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Update for Akamai (AS 20940) < > MICE >> >> >> Greetings everyone. And Reid. :-) >> >> Our implementation is proceeding and we’re projecting that we’ll be moving bits back to the exchange in the next few weeks. >> >> Unfortunately, we’re dropping our route server sessions permanently. Everyone who is now route server only will need to established bi lateral peering. Send your peering request to peering(a)akamai.com with the requisite details (ASN, peer addresses). If you had a direct session previously, we have not forgotten it and there’s no need to restate. Traffic will return slowly, first with our SSL bits and then full on edge a few weeks after that. >> >> Thanks for your patience and for helping to build a better Internet in MSP. >> >> Best, >> >> Martin Hannigan // AS 20940 // AS 32787 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: >> http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

May 10, 2016

Re: Update for Akamai (AS 20940) < > MICE

by Andrew Hoyos

Likewise here, crickets…… > On May 9, 2016, at 9:05 PM, Jeremy Lumby <jlumby(a)mnvoip.com> wrote: > > Has anyone heard back from peering(a)akamai.com ? It has been almost 2 weeks, my bi-lateral peering request has gone unanswered, and the session I built for them is not established. I know Marty mentioned they were working on some things, however I have not even gotten a reply acknowledging my emails. > > Jeremy > > From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 9:34 PM > To: MICE-DISCUSS(a)LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET > Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Update for Akamai (AS 20940) < > MICE > > > Greetings everyone. And Reid. :-) > > Our implementation is proceeding and we’re projecting that we’ll be moving bits back to the exchange in the next few weeks. > > Unfortunately, we’re dropping our route server sessions permanently. Everyone who is now route server only will need to established bi lateral peering. Send your peering request to peering(a)akamai.com with the requisite details (ASN, peer addresses). If you had a direct session previously, we have not forgotten it and there’s no need to restate. Traffic will return slowly, first with our SSL bits and then full on edge a few weeks after that. > > Thanks for your patience and for helping to build a better Internet in MSP. > > Best, > > Martin Hannigan // AS 20940 // AS 32787 > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: > http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

May 10, 2016