On Dec 10, 2013, at 10:06 PM, Jay Hanke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On Dec 10, 2013 8:34 PM, "Hannigan, Martin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> On Dec 10, 2013, at 9:25 PM, Richard Laager <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2013-12-10 at 21:21 -0500, Reid Fishler wrote:
> >> Please take a look at http://www.netnod.se/ix/statistics, to see how
> >> they do it. This is what we are planning to model off of.
> >
> > They are graphing the anonymous ports. So MICE would have exactly the
> > problems I noted. So this doesn't solve anything.
>
>
>
> I agree, it would be sort of a joke actually as it would be completely obvious when we went down and back up.
>
> This will also prevent other large sources of traffic from joining the exchange. We're happy to work to see if we can help with whatever the objective is and to come up with a solution if its possible, but we would like our ports opted out ASAP.
MICE is required by contract to provide mrtg graphing to Akamai. MICE is also managed by the members of the exchange. If the managers of the ix can't access the graphs we can't provide them if requested.
Marty, could you be specific in your request and make a suggestion?

Right on with the agreement. It does say that we may ask for MRTG graph data related to ports statistics. It also says we expect confidentiality. Our port data is confidential. The MICE Board signed this agreement with us. If we take our port down to the wider audience like we have gracefully requested, we're happy to discuss what the objective is and how we may be helpful. I'll be honest, I doubt that the outcome is "sure, display our data to anyone with a login", but it is likely to be reasonable and inline with North American IXP norms. NETNOD is in Norway and Mice is in North America. NETNOD is also orders of magnitude larger than MICE. That's not the solution.