Anytime today (11th) or Friday (13th) are fine for me if anyone wanted to have a call.

I'd agree that Dave did a good job of summarizing the issues and Richard's responses are a reasonable evolution in our shared MICE journey. I'd thought about a combination of ASN/member specific passwords and leaving the graphs open to members but I'm not sure that would meet Martin's needs, especially in the nirvana of the future when his competition might also be MICE members.

Obviously under a "hidden graph" scenario members couldn't troubleshoot traffic bottlenecks across MICE themselves and people would need to continue to have reasonable expectations about volunteer administrator's abilities to respond. Part of the support for the current policy came from member's experiences of being frustrated by their provider's opaqueness in situations like the last iOS upgrade, but I think everyone understands that some of Akamai's needs are a little different.

One loose end: Doug - can you remove that posting (or perhaps just the graph image) from the mailing list archive?

The "anonymous port" idea isn't a bad one either, but it doesn't seem as clean to me in terms of maintenance simplicity and perhaps in terms of anonymity given the current port count and comparative traffic volumes. Having said that I'll certainly work to implement whatever the group's new direction is, appreciate everyone's thoughts and support.

Cheers,

anthony

Anthony Anderberg

Sr. Systems Analyst

320-234-5239

[log in to unmask]

www.nutelecom.net

From: MICE Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Shaun Carlson
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 6:13 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Port Anonymity

Should we set up a call for later today?

s

On Tuesday, December 10, 2013, Hannigan, Martin wrote:

Jay,

Theres a lot of conflicting stuff here. Think I liked most of Richards responses to David.

Let's talk live and see if we can sort this out. Work?

Best,

Marty

On Dec 10, 2013, at 22:49, "Jay Hanke" <[log in to unmask]);" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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.
>

Can you narrow down the scope better? Keep in mind we have no formally defined admins, so if you say admin you'll need to lay that out as well.

Jay

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

Shaun Carlson
Network Engineering Manager | Arvig

ph: (218) 346-8673 | em: [log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]

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