I realize I am sending this on a holiday. This does _not_ require
immediate attention; next week is fine.
WiscNet has proposed a remote switch. I'm forwarding their proposal to
the MICE-DISCUSS list per our procedure. You can find it at the bottom
of this message. If you have any feedback for the board, please share
on-list or off-list, as you prefer. Note that the listserv software sets
a Reply-To, so if you are trying to reply off-list, you will have to
_edit_ the To field in your reply.
The interesting question from my perspective, which we discussed a bit
at the last UG, is whether MICE should require remote switches to be
dedicated to this purpose. It's my understanding that other exchanges,
e.g. SIX, have this requirement. The last few remote switches have all
been dedicated, so things had trended that way without it being an
official MICE policy. The WiscNet proposal is for a non-dedicated switch
which is bringing this question to the forefront.
Requiring remote switches to be dedicated is intended to help protect
the MICE switching fabric. It would provide a clean demarcation point,
which is important for applying rules like one-MAC-per-port, etc. It
also reduces the chances of problems in practice due to clean
separation, less complexity of configuration, etc.
Currently, the following remote switches are, to the best of my
Zayo (formerly Neutral Path)
South Front Networks
The following remote switches are not dedicated:
I'm not sure about the following, but they're probably not dedicated:
Northern Lights GigaPoP*
* This is something we treat somewhat like a remote switch, but I
believe they pre-date the remote switch policy.
Note that the non-dedicated switches are the original remote switches or
their direct successors.
I believe the consensus at the last UG when we discussed this was that:
- Implicitly: We need to decide the policy.
- Either way, the policy needs to apply to all remote switches; i.e.
we don't reject some solely for being non-dedicated while accepting
- If we require remotes to be dedicated, existing non-dedicated
switches need to be grandfathered for at least some amount of time.
Upgrades to new switches would end grandfathering.
I do not feel confident saying there was a consensus on the actual
question of whether dedicated switches should be required or not. If you
feel I misjudged the consensus of the room in either direction, please
let me know.
If a dedicated switch was required, WiscNet would have to add an
additional switch, which would look like this:
[WiscNet MICE Remote Switch ] * No VLANs, All Untagged
| 100G-SR4 | 100G-SR4
| VLAN 123 | VLAN 456
| untagged | untagged
[WiscNet Existing Switch]
| existing | existing
| 100G-LR4 | 100G-LR4
[WiscNet MX] [Iowa MX]
The VLAN IDs (123, 456) are made-up examples.
We discussed this and other alternatives off-list. WiscNet is firmly
opposed to adding such an additional switch. If MICE requires dedicated
remote switches, WiscNet will not operate a remote switch. They will
still upgrade their connectivity to MICE to 100G, but Iowa and MERIT
will likely be left out (unless they decide to get their own MICE ports).
I (and I assume the rest of the board) would also be especially
interested to hear from the other operators of non-dedicated remote
switches. Feel free to reply on-list or off-list at your option.
As per the usual remote switch procedure, after there's been an
opportunity for comments, the next step is for the board to vote on the
WiscNet remote switch proposal. Approving this proposal implicitly
decides that non-dedicated switches are okay, at least for now. It is my
view that we should _explicitly_ decide the dedicated remote switch
question one way or another, so I will also ask for a board decision on
that, but I cannot _require_ such a decision individually, of course.
There is no specific timeline on this, but if you have thoughts, please
share them as soon as possible.
Finally, while this is already public knowledge, I'd like to
specifically disclose that my employer's connection to MICE is on the
CNS switch, a non-dedicated remote switch.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: WiscNet - AS2381 - Mice Remote Switch
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:22:44 +0000
From: Chris Wopat <[log in to unmask]>
Hi folks, sorry for the multi-week week delay in responding.
I've attached a simplified diagram indicating how WiscNet would like to
connect to MICE. The diagram is separated by three phases- Current,
We are looking to transition from our current 10g connection via
University of Minnesota Gigapop, to a direct 100g connection from the
MICE core Arista switch to WiscNet's recently installed QFX10002.
We would like to have the ability to share this connection with other
Research and Education organizations that may already connect to our
existing switch, as well as a few who may connect to it in the future.
Known entities on the interested list are University of Iowa (AS3676)
and MERIT Network (AS237). This list may grow a little over time, but
it's likely that we'll be able to count this number entities on one hand.
WiscNet is a non profit 501(c)(3) who per our bylaws
(https://www.wiscnet.net/bylaws) primarily serve educational
institutions and do not service commercial entities.
When WiscNet recently reached out asking to become a MICE remote switch,
we were disappointed to hear that a recent(?) policy change was made
indicating that remote switches must be dedicated for MICE usage only.
We will not be able to dedicate this device for MICE usage, nor would it
be cost effective to purchase a separate switch just for this purpose.
We're hoping that there's some middle category here where we're a switch
+ our few research partners, similar to how a few entities are set up today.
Network Engineer, WiscNet
[log in to unmask] 608-210-3965