[80385] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: PAIX Outages
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen J. Wilcox)
Fri Apr 29 16:29:52 2005
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 21:29:22 +0100 (BST)
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
To: Alexander Koch <koch@tiscali.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <20050429120813.GA26745@shekinah.ip.tiscali.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Alexander Koch wrote:
> On Fri, 29 April 2005 13:04:05 +0100, Neil J. McRae wrote:
> > > and we happily overloaded our peers' interfaces at the respective other
> > > IX...
> >
> > That sounds more like a planning issue than anything else. If you have
> > traffic going through a pipe, then you need to make sure you have somewhere
> > else to send it. If you are managing your peers properly, private or public,
> > there should be no issue.
>
> With public peering you simply never know how much spare capacity your peer
> has free. And would you expect your peer with 400 Mbit/s total to have 400
> reserved on his AMSIX port for you when you see 300 at LINX and LINX goes
> down?
what makes this a public peering issue.. i see a couple folks already made the
point i wanted to do but just because you have capacity to a peer (on a public
interface or a dedicated) PI doesnt mean they arent aggregating at their side
and/or have enough capacity to carry the traffic where it needs to go
this is also about scale, i would hope you arent peering 400Mb flows across a
1Gb port at an IX, this would imho not be good practice.. if your example were
40Mb then it would be different or perhaps 400mb on a 10Gb port.
you might even argue there is more incentive to ensure public ix ports have
capacity as congestion will affect multiple peers
Steve
