Our agreement with MN VOIP would be for transport from KC to Minneapolis. If the link became congested, we would order additional capacity. If MN VoIP could t provide it then we would get it someplace else. In the end, our intention is to be congestion free from KC to the MICE core. Aaron

On Jan 29, 2022, at 12:30 PM, Michael Hare <000000097dab80c5-dmarc-request@lists.iphouse.net> wrote:

 Hi-

As I understand this will be an extension of an extension. It looks like this may be the second of that kind. If I understand this correctly the "South Front Networks Alberta Lea Remotes" switch hangs off of Minnesota VoIP?

@ https://www.micemn.net/technical.html, I see "Operators are responsible for the costs of operating their remote switch and the links to the core switch. They must monitor their traffic levels and promptly add capacity to keep the links running congestion-free."

My reading of above implies the current policy assumes a remote switch will connect to the MICE core directly. Perhaps we revisit the above language as it pertains to “the core switch”.

-Michael

From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 5:31 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] NOCIX MICE Extension Proposal

For everyone's review and comment per our policy on remote switches:

"As per the MICE remote switch policy this letter will serve as NOCIX’s intention to deploy, pending board approval, a MICE extension switch at the 1530 Swift facility at 1530 Swift St. North Kansas City, MO 64116. The purpose of this extension is to provide additional, low cost peering in the Kansas City and surrounding markets directly to the north-central US."

See the attached PDF for full details.

Richard

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

Just a note of clairification is that I have experienced with regards to the frequency that unprotected waves go down. The greater the distance, the more likely/frequently that it is to happen. You brought up my SIX Extension. I have waves across 3 geographically diverse paths. On average there is a single wave outage once a month. If it was not for the monitoring, I would not notice since the redundancy tends to failover quite well. We even managed to survive prolonged outages of 10 and 20 days from Avalanches, and Mudslides. Specifically the paths for this proposal between 511 and 1102 Grand will have 2 diverse paths. One goes via Omaha, and the other one via Chicago. Jeremy Lumby Minnesota VoIP 9217 17th Ave S #216 Bloomington, MN 55425 M: 612-355-7740 D: 612-392-6814 F: 952-873-7425 jlumby@mnvoip.com From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Michael Hare Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 11:30 AM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] NOCIX MICE Extension Proposal To be clear my messages are NOT intended to be a downvote for the proposal, I’m just intending to foster discussion. I don't thinkhttps://www.micemn.net/technical.html needs major changes. Maybe change “Operators are responsible for the costs of operating their remote switch and the links to the core switch.” to “Operators are responsible for the costs of operating their remote switch and the links [TOWARDS] the core switch.” I think it's worthwhile acknowledging the distance to the proposed remote switch, the presumed lack of redundancy in the proposed backhaul. re: reliability: Is the lack of redundancy an accurate assumption, or would this be a protected wave? AS3128 has some experience in this area [AS3128 assists in operations of a 1000mi+ fiber ring for multistate research and education, including through Minneapolis and Minnesota] so I wanted to ack that in general with distance comes decreased reliability, and eBGP stability is important since topology changes lead to packet loss during convergence. I acknowledge we already have peers at MICE that are extensions out of Chicago [Google comes to mind]. I am also aware of the options that, for example, AS32621 provides in extending folks to Seattle IX as an opt-in value add, which is contrast to the ‘auto opt-in’ stance MICE route reflectors users enjoy. re: distance: based on geography or your home AS stance, this change could result in a longer RTT between some networks. AS3128 appears at exchanges other than MICE. But if you are in this club you are probably aware that you already have this potential problem and either you deal with it or not. Admittedly, our operations are less algorithmic and more reactionary. So if I were to focus discussions on either distance or reliability, I would focus more on reliability. Ultimately with MICE per-AS BGP community support, the publication ofhttps://www.micemn.net/participants.html <https://www.micemn.net/participants.html>, and mailing list announcements of when new peers are brought onboard, AS3128 has all the tools it needs ==IF== we need to make a traffic engineer decision, which is great. If NOCIX comes onboard, I would welcome them and would have no intentions to proactively traffic engineer away from them via MICE. -Michael From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Aaron Wendel Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 9:46 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] NOCIX MICE Extension Proposal Our agreement with MN VOIP would be for transport from KC to Minneapolis. If the link became congested, we would order additional capacity. If MN VoIP could t provide it then we would get it someplace else. In the end, our intention is to be congestion free from KC to the MICE core. Aaron On Jan 29, 2022, at 12:30 PM, Michael Hare <000000097dab80c5-dmarc-request@lists.iphouse.net> wrote: Hi- As I understand this will be an extension of an extension. It looks like this may be the second of that kind. If I understand this correctly the "South Front Networks Alberta Lea Remotes" switch hangs off of Minnesota VoIP? @https://www.micemn.net/technical.html, I see "Operators are responsible for the costs of operating their remote switch and the links to the core switch. They must monitor their traffic levels and promptly add capacity to keep the links running congestion-free." My reading of above implies the current policy assumes a remote switch will connect to the MICE core directly. Perhaps we revisit the above language as it pertains to “the core switch”. -Michael From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Richard Laager Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 5:31 PM To:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] NOCIX MICE Extension Proposal For everyone's review and comment per our policy on remote switches: "As per the MICE remote switch policy this letter will serve as NOCIX’s intention to deploy, pending board approval, a MICE extension switch at the 1530 Swift facility at 1530 Swift St. North Kansas City, MO 64116. The purpose of this extension is to provide additional, low cost peering in the Kansas City and surrounding markets directly to the north-central US." See the attached PDF for full details. Richard --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

This goes back to my last message: I have complete confidence that Jeremy can get us from KC to MN reliably and redundantly. Within KC we operate our own DF and can spin up as much capacity as we need to wherever we need it. If something bad we’re to happen to MN VoIP, there are plenty of other paths available to pivot to. Aaron

On Jan 30, 2022, at 12:55 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager@wiktel.com> wrote:



...

On 1/30/22 11:29, Michael Hare wrote: I don't think https://www.micemn.net/technical.html needs major changes. Maybe change “Operators are responsible for the costs of operating their remote switch and the links to the core switch.” to “Operators are responsible for the costs of operating their remote switch and the links [TOWARDS] the core switch.” I'm happy with the current language. My take on this is that remote-off-remote operators are still responsible for getting all the way to the core, congestion-free. For example, in this case, NOCIX is responsible for getting back to the core congestion-free. If they choose to go through MN VoIP, that's their business (subject to MICE board approval), but it does not release them from their obligation to get all the way back congestion-free. If MN VoIP (e.g. gets sold to Evil Telco tomorrow and) refuses to upgrade the links as needed, then NOCIX needs to find another way to get back to the core (or kill their remote switch). This is separate from MN VoIP's obligation to do the same. -- Richard

To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1

Thanks Aaron and Jeremy re: the redundancy clarification. I had either overlooked or misunderstood the transport redundancy being proposed. -Michael From: MICE Discuss <MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET> On Behalf Of Aaron Wendel Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2022 7:12 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] NOCIX MICE Extension Proposal This goes back to my last message: I have complete confidence that Jeremy can get us from KC to MN reliably and redundantly. Within KC we operate our own DF and can spin up as much capacity as we need to wherever we need it. If something bad we’re to happen to MN VoIP, there are plenty of other paths available to pivot to. Aaron On Jan 30, 2022, at 12:55 PM, Richard Laager <rlaager@wiktel.com<mailto:rlaager@wiktel.com>> wrote:  On 1/30/22 11:29, Michael Hare wrote: I don't think https://www.micemn.net/technical.html needs major changes. Maybe change “Operators are responsible for the costs of operating their remote switch and the links to the core switch.” to “Operators are responsible for the costs of operating their remote switch and the links [TOWARDS] the core switch.” I'm happy with the current language. My take on this is that remote-off-remote operators are still responsible for getting all the way to the core, congestion-free. For example, in this case, NOCIX is responsible for getting back to the core congestion-free. If they choose to go through MN VoIP, that's their business (subject to MICE board approval), but it does not release them from their obligation to get all the way back congestion-free. If MN VoIP (e.g. gets sold to Evil Telco tomorrow and) refuses to upgrade the links as needed, then NOCIX needs to find another way to get back to the core (or kill their remote switch). This is separate from MN VoIP's obligation to do the same. -- Richard ________________________________ 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