[73276] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Current street prices for US Internet Transit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mikael Abrahamsson)
Wed Aug 18 02:44:52 2004
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 08:44:14 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Deepak Jain <deepak@ai.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <4122EBF3.6030408@ai.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Deepak Jain wrote:
> the example we are talking about below, an _approximately_ 5Gb/s stream
> on an _approximately_ full pipe the performance will be significantly
> better than you imply. And I have customers that do it pretty regularly
> (2 ~500Mb/s streams per GE port - telemetry data) on their equipment
> with very small buffers (3550s).
Well, my experience is that 500 meg on a gig link background, and then a
single highspeed tcp stream on top of that, it's basically the same thing
as putting a 500 meg policer on it. And on a 500 meg policer on a gig link
and trying to go as fast as you can with a gig-connected machine, you
won't be able to use the remaining 500 meg, you'll get 200-300 meg.
> I suppose your example of transoceanic connectivity vs an 80km span was
> an example where a congestion case would exist for a long time rather
> than a decent upgrade plan. I guess that is a spend more on HW vs spend
> more on connectivity model -- or trust that C or J overengineered so the
> network doesn't have to be properly engineered [by assumption].
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. If connectivity is expensive, spend more
on what you connect to that connectivity, if connectivity is cheap, buy
two and buy cheaper things to connect to it.
--
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
