[165661] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Hallgren)
Tue Sep 17 19:27:51 2013
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 01:24:29 +0200
From: Michael Hallgren <m.hallgren@free.fr>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <CE61A6AD-03F9-4061-B0C9-DB1F38C23682@ianai.net>
Reply-To: mh@xalto.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Le 17/09/2013 20:15, Patrick W. Gilmore a écrit :
> On Sep 17, 2013, at 12:11 , Martin T <m4rtntns@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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?
Hi,
Good reading, to get an idea:
https://www1.ethz.ch/csg/people/dimitroc/papers/p95pam.pdf
Section 3, mainly.
Cheers,
mh
>>
>
> 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.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlI45K0ACgkQZNZ/rrgsqaeSAQCfR93/ksBGa1KRW6P6zLR2cRwG
2fEAnRlZMtamameFoQgVdYZwTKD7Lb1b
=UVol
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
