[165649] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Nick Hilliard)
Tue Sep 17 11:07:05 2013
X-Envelope-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:04:49 +0100
From: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org>
To: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <855E5BCC-60EC-43DF-9BBD-FF1C5F0727D3@ianai.net>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 17/09/2013 14:43, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
> And yes, DE-CIX is more than well aware everyone thinks this is .. uh ..
> let's just call it "silly" for now, although most would use far more
> disparaging words. Which is probably why no serious IXP does it.
It's not silly - it's just not what everyone else does, so it's not
possible to directly compare stats with other ixps. I'm all in favour of
using short (but technically sensible) sampling intervals for internal
monitoring, but there are good reasons to use 300s / ingress sum for
prettypics intended for public consumption.
Nick
