[165654] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Tue Sep 17 14:16:33 2013
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAJx5YvE9yEY0gF0=XN1k=iOFKjfZd5OJYHcOfAYkRk8UUpW2VQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 14:15:14 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--Apple-Mail=_0222D805-DDC4-4C67-B6DB-1084E15E40E0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=iso-8859-1
On Sep 17, 2013, at 12:11 , Martin T <m4rtntns@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for all the replies!
>=20
>=20
> Nick,
>=20
> 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.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Patrick,
>=20
> 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?
The graph has a bigger peak, and DE-CIX has claimed "see, we are bigger" =
using such graphs. Not only did they not caveat the fact they were using =
a non-standard sampling method, they have refused to change when =
confronted or even say what their traffic would be with a 300 second =
timer.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Nick
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
--Apple-Mail=_0222D805-DDC4-4C67-B6DB-1084E15E40E0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
filename=signature.asc
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature;
name=signature.asc
Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSOJwyAAoJEHZX8udmu5TXxvIH/RDmUqekxHjAKAQmYgNhq2Za
3wzHyeI6CzbwXBkoKhZNsyrMYh52dwiyCoHC8DZSBP5VV1UwZGl0ErC/Ybcnymsh
NtHCVKJl+Dnyse8c7It0yww7HovKi+bIqp41STunl8gdDAyRbxwf13HQfPQ82FSQ
be+jM/Hp7Tx/Tqe6xcLfKtDlTuvKiPX+xrwi+5JPD2VrTp37S7Cpb3vKMoAn2Mbj
jJdyrSnaAhFPxVvYfYw0Y+zCsKnGCRC+SzsLW6LpAeLirEvSv9UHrGs28lOpI0xH
jYUGRZeGCHslQyBxZD/7zr8mDFz7SwB9D9ok/kioNjUe2x2Ti5fIcwsJTP/yJlg=
=lL88
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Apple-Mail=_0222D805-DDC4-4C67-B6DB-1084E15E40E0--
