[38258] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: C&W Peering Problem?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott Patterson)
Fri Jun 1 17:20:39 2001
From: "Scott Patterson" <scottp@netrail.net>
To: "Christopher A. Woodfield" <rekoil@semihuman.com>,
"Jason Lewis" <jlewis@jasonlewis.net>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 17:19:57 -0400
Message-ID: <FPENJCCBJKPHKLKBDGILIELODPAA.scottp@netrail.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <20010601164419.F1148@semihuman.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> I didn't see this as an explicit
> requirement, but less
> clueful backbones (Genuity, PSI, and now C&W) do tend
> to drop peering
> sessions with other backbones that push far more
> traffic than they pull.
Read section IV of their policy again:
IV. Traffic Requirements
A. Each peering
connection speed shall be at least 155 Mbps.
B. The traffic volume
at each peering connection shall be at least 45
Mbps.
C. The aggregated
traffic ratio shall not exceed a ratio of 2 : 1
D. Traffic volumes
shall be measured in either direction, inbound or
outbound, whichever
is higher, on a weekly aggregated average
basis over all the
points where the parties exchange traffic
Point C says 2:1, but D says they don't care in which direction
its in, it just has to be balanced.
-Scott
