[97577] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: TransAtlantic Cable Break
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris L. Morrow)
Sun Jun 24 11:28:43 2007
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:27:40 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Chris L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@verizonbusiness.com>
In-reply-to: <467E6470.8070000@inoc.net>
To: Robert Blayzor <rblayzor@inoc.net>
Cc: nanog <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Robert Blayzor wrote:
>
> > However, if you put 15G down your "20G" path, you have no redundancy.
> > In a cut, dropping 5G on the floor, causing 33% packet loss is not
> > "up", it might as well be down.
>
> I don't know if that's always true. Case in point 802.17. It runs
> active-active in unprotected space. While you have the extra bandwidth
> and classes of service, a cut doesn't really mean you're hard down, it
> all depends on the SLA's you provide to customers. Of course anything
> over the guaranteed bandwidth during failure would be classed only as
> "best effort".
Then there's the interesting: "How do you classify 'to be dropped'
traffic?" Simon suggests nntp or BitTorrent could be put into a lower
class queue, I'm curious as to how you'd classify traffic which is
port-agile such as BitTorrent though. In theory that sounds like a grand
plan, in practice it isn't simple...
