 |
 |
> Remote Switches > > I'd further propose that remote switch operators pay their port fee > but not an IP fee unless they are peering as well. Anyone who pays any > fee is a member and has voting rights. Which is a change from our > current requirement of having 1 BGP session. Any AS connected to a > remote switch pays the IP Fee and the port costs are between them and > the remote switch "owner". > > Remote Switch owners must provide superuser rights to MICE for their > switches to provide common administration. I'd also argue the > equipment switching must be dedicated. Remote switch operators are > responsible for all the costs associated with running their remote > switches. Addition of future switches requires Board of Governors > approval, and likely some written agreement in the future. In light of this requirement, do we want to spell out that among the BoG approval criteria is the use of a model/brand of switch compatible with the knowledge/training of the current fabric administrators? Have we documented the criteria for this BoG approval at all? Is that something we want to do, or just leave it as an assumption that all parties will work in good faith to do "the right thing" in this regard? I'm fine with either decision, but I'd like it to be a conscious decision made deliberately rather than an implied decision. > Remote Switches applies to attaching a L2 fabric to the network not > transporting single connections. > I would clarify the definition as: A remote switch is any piece of active hardware not owned by MICE which connects more than one member to the MICE core infrastructure. > I think MICE not purchase or provide any transport period. If other > parties want to offer that service I don't see an issue with it > I would suggest: All costs and contracts required for remote switches to reach and connect to the MICE core infrastructure shall be the responsibility of the remote switch operator. > Grace Period > > I'd advocate offering a six month grace for new members on either 1G > or 10G ports for new participants. > I think a 3 month grace period is probably a more reasonable compromise. I think MICE is well enough established and presents a good enough value proposition to be attractive to new members as is. I don't know of any other (paid) IX offering 3 months free service, let alone 6. > Small Networks > > Under this model, small networks could connect to a "cheaper" remote > switch so they would have a way to connect and participate in MICE > that's feasible for them. ~$500/year isn't a huge hurdle. > I haven't had a chance to look over the spreadsheet yet, but if $500/year is the IP fee, that seems rather steep to me. To the best of my knowledge, an IX is treated as an end-user organization and not a subscriber member in terms of ARIN fees. That means we should have paid about $2,250 for our initial IPv6 and IPv4 assignments combined and $500 for our ASN as a one-time fee, but should be paying $100/year thereafter. We should never need more IPv6 (a /48 is realistically enough to run several thousand of the worlds largest exchange points) and I suggest we treat the cost of additional IPv4 space ($1,250 or $MARKET, depending on timing) as a problem to solve when we have more than 200 attachments to the exchange (I think that's a ways off and the cost of IPv4 by then is unpredictable at best, if it can be obtained at all.) > Expansion beyond 511 > > I think MICE should focus on getting our ducks in a row in 511 for > now. I would be open to "seeding" a second exchange somewhere else in > the Midwest. > Agreed. Any seeding should probably be done by forming a separate organization and having MICE make an agreed upon (by vote of the members) contribution to said organization. > Promotion > > We should budget something for promotion and holding events. > Organizing a UG is a PITA when you need to get everything for free. In > addition, we may need to chip in for some travel at some point. Factual questions (the answers to which might shape members thoughts on the opinion questions): How frequent are the UG meetings? What is typical attendance? What level of facilities/etc. is required to hold a UG meeting? + Banquet room of a restaurant + Small Conference Room (essentially like a board room) + Large Conference Room (hotel ballroom in conference configuration) + Other? (please specify) Other than space, what logistics/facilities are required? Solicit other members opinions questions: Should UG meeting costs be borne by the full membership or by the attendees or some combination? Do we want to start requiring UG meetings to support remote participation? > Remote Hands > > Entering in a contract for 24x7 support is also something we should explore. +1 Owen ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1