[194697] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (LHC (k9m))
Tue May 23 18:18:30 2017
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 15:16:39 -0700
In-Reply-To: <15739.1495566652@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "LHC (k9m)" <large.hadron.collider@gmx.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
You need an extra 9 lines to handle the overrun=2E
On May 23, 2017 12:10:52 PM PDT, valdis=2Ekletnieks@vt=2Eedu wrote:
>On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:07:14 -0300, Pedro de Botelho Marcos said:
>
>> Dynamic agreements offer many opportunities=2E For example, consider
>> acquiring extra "bandwidth as a service" that is available on demand
>just
>> when one needs it, similarly to how one might spin up extra VMs in
>the
>> cloud to handle high loads=2E
>
>In computer science, all problems can be solved by adding a level of
>indirection=2E
>
>You've now changed it from lengthy discussion about the connection, to
>lengthy
>discussion about which dynamic agreements both sides are willing to
>support=2E
>
>Hint: You can't discuss "bandwidth as a service" without both sides
>talking
>about how much burst capacity might be needed, because the capacity
>would *still*
>require over-provisioning in order to be available if needed=2E If both
>ends
>of the link have 1G optics, you're not going to burst to 10G no matter
>how
>many dynamic agreements you have=2E
--=20
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E
