[165651] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Martin T)
Tue Sep 17 12:13:57 2013
In-Reply-To: <52386F91.5020801@foobar.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 19:11:23 +0300
From: Martin T <m4rtntns@gmail.com>
To: swmike <swmike@swm.pp.se>, nick <nick@foobar.org>, patrick@ianai.net
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Thanks for all the replies!
Nick,
counting traffic on inter-switch links is kind of cheating, isn't it?
I mean if "input bytes" and "output bytes" on all the ports facing the
IX members are already counted, then counting traffic on links between
the switches in fabric will count some of the traffic multiple times.
Patrick,
how does smaller sampling period help to show more traffic volume on
switch fabric? Or do you mean that in case of shorter sampling periods
the traffic peaks are not averaged out and thus peak in and peak out
traffic levels remain higher?
regards,
Martin
On 9/17/13, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
