[132084] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Current trends in capacity planning and oversubscription
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Sat Nov 13 12:38:15 2010
To: Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:52:20 EST."
<alpine.GSO.2.00.1011121833400.19399@clifden.donelan.com>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:37:32 -0500
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1289669852_5605P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:52:20 EST, Sean Donelan said:
> The difference is the people using LHC data usually have someone who can
> figure out network capacity planning, while the people in an
> administrative school office may not have anyone.
>
> So what is a reasonable network capacity for 1,000 students now and in 5
> years.
Just as LHC people and a school are different, I'm willing to bet that bandwidth
"requirements" per student are different based on the school and its policies,
and that they're to a large extent self-fullfilling.
The "requirement" at a small liberal arts school with a fascist network usage
policy "we block all bittorrent and any protocols we don't understand (i.e.
most of them), and no network access in the dorms", will be different from a
large engineering school that says "We'll provide bandwidth so you can explore,
experiment, and learn, and we'll let you know if you're named in a copyright
complaint".
So "reasonable" bandwidth ends up depending on what the network admin thinks
"reasonable" use of the network is...
--==_Exmh_1289669852_5605P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFM3szccC3lWbTT17ARAtGNAKDeLw1k6+P3SF501GrDPqDgAxM5XgCgmMyF
kqwZjqxKLSqZewVw3v3kxMk=
=TKEf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1289669852_5605P--
