[46740] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: packet reordering at exchange points
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jesper Skriver)
Tue Apr 9 17:43:53 2002
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 23:42:45 +0200
From: Jesper Skriver <jesper@skriver.dk>
To: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>,
Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20020409234245.C58550@skriver.dk>
Mail-Followup-To: Jesper Skriver <jesper@skriver.dk>,
"E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>,
Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, Paul Vixie <paul@vix.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0204091743380.16897-100000@www.everquick.net>; from eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net on Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 06:00:31PM +0000
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 06:00:31PM +0000, E.B. Dreger wrote:
> > A large IX in Europe have this exact problem on their Foundry swiches,
> > which doesn't support round robin, and is currently forced to moving for
>
> Can you state how many participants?
100+
> With N x GigE, what sort of [im]balance is there over the N lines?
a few links overloaded, which other practically doesn't carry traffic.
> Of course, I'd hope that individual heavy pairs would establish
> private interconnects instead of using public switch fabric, but I
> know that's not always { an option | done | ... }.
If A and B exchange say 200 Mbps of traffic, moving to a PNI is for sure
a option, but if both have GigE connections to the shared infrastruture
with spare capacity, both can expect the IX to handle that traffic.
/Jesper
--
Jesper Skriver, jesper(at)skriver(dot)dk - CCIE #5456
Work: Network manager @ AS3292 (Tele Danmark DataNetworks)
Private: FreeBSD committer @ AS2109 (A much smaller network ;-)
One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them,
One IP to bring them all and in the zone to bind them.
