On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 09:39:43AM -0600, Jason Hanke wrote:
> USI has arranged for Arista Networks to donate a 7504 switch with
> 32x100G and 96x10G ports with one year of support. In year 2, MICE
> would be responsible for the ongoing support costs about 14k per
> year.  There would be one additional slot for future growth.

First - thank you USI for diving into this!

https://www.arista.com/en/products/7500-series for those that wanna
look into what this chassis is capable of.

> Here's what I'd propose:
> 1G ports= Free (Only 1 port per member, NO LAG allowed)
> Initial 10G port= $250 Annual
> Each additional 10G port $1000 Annual per port (up to 8 member LAG
>   allowed)
> 100G port $3000 Annual per port

My counter commentary + fee list:

  1Gbe ports - $250 annual per port, LAG allowed, max 2
  10Gbe ports - $500 annual per port, LAG allowed, max 4
  40Gbe ports - $2000 annual per port, cause why not just do 100Gbe!?!,
    LAG max 2, and above no 40Gbe ports were listed so really, do
    100Gbe and let's move on, okay?
  100Gbe ports - $3000 annual per port, LAG allowed, max 4

  Optics provided by the member and must be on the approved list for
  the hardware (in this case: Arista 7504) - I know that later on Jay
  mentions that Arista will remove the lockout for them but I don't
  think MICE should just allow who-flung-poo optics installed because
  the member is trying to be cheap at the risk of problems with the
  fabric.

  Non-participating member - $100 annual, no voting position, feel
    good fee
  Participating member - $250 annual, voting position, no port, extra
    feel good fee.

  Users who have ports already assigned into a LAG should be
  grandfathered in for their configuration regardless of LAG port
  count limit as proposed. If a member is already at 5 10Gbe ports
  then let them stay at that level. If member wants to add another
  port then push them towards the 100Gbe solution but allow for a
  single port increase in LAG size only.

> Remote switch operators pay the fee for their main switch ports.
> Remote switch participants do not pay a main switch port fee.

Seems fair! But if a remote switch operator is charging at a higher
rate than paid into the current fees should a portion of that be sent
into the funding as well?

> No grandfathering, all types of networks are treated the same.

YES!

> We will not disconnect for non-payment until port run out and
> contention occurs. A policy will need to be developed.

I don't agree - non-payment == shutdown IMO. And if continues for 3
months is then removed from the fabric and pulled from site. Suspend
and comment out the BGP configuration and IP allocation for up to 6
months before removal, and later reallocation of IP space.

> Each carrier provides their own optic. Arista has agreed to remove
> the vendor lockout for optics.

Will they support non-approved optics then?

Jay then brings up revenue projections but I think it should go to
everyone as this is a single chassis solution. I'd like to see at
least a dual chassis solution and members spread across as needed to
keep resiliency high.

Yes, I know, I am no longer officially part of MICE and my opinion may
not matter to all of you. And that's okay :)

-- 
Mike Horwath, reachable via [log in to unmask]