[80341] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: PAIX Outages
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Huopio Kauto)
Fri Apr 29 02:57:10 2005
From: Huopio Kauto <Kauto.Huopio@ficora.fi>
To: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 09:56:36 +0300
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> From: Alexander Koch [mailto:koch@tiscali.net]
[..]
> As another matter I do not believe in public peering at all
> when you have flows to a single peer that are ore than half
> of a full GE. Been there, was not at all nice. I guess more
> and more operators will have less and less public IX ports,
> and the open peering coalition will start wondering at some
> point... The AMSIX has a lot of 10G peers. While they just
> take two ports, and the AMSIX supposedly also being redundant
> (and cheap <g>) it is just a time- bomb. How many times did
> either LINX or AMSIX had issues (actually very rare!) and we
> happily overloaded our peers' interfaces at the respective
> other IX... Say what you want, but public peering (yes/no)
> has a lot to do with your amount of traffic, and your peers.
>
It depends. Thinking of reliability:
FICIX over here in Finland requires all full members to
join _two_ switches in physically separate locations from separate
points in your own network, using redundant fiber paths.
Result: a very reliable IX. In Sweden
Netnod has IX facilities in five cities around the country.
AFAIK most of the traffic exchange is done over public peerings
in Finland and Sweden - very reliably.
--Kauto
