MAE-East - Operational question
jsb at UU.NET
Wed Aug 19 21:35:57 UTC 1998
When I have seen packet loss between two providers peering
across the various shared medium FDDI interconnects, it has
almost always been due to one or more of the following
- Network A has congested pipe(s) into the L2 thing.
- Network B has congested pipe(s) into the L2 thing.
- Network A has congested pipe(s) to the rest of
- Network B has congested pipe(s) to the rest of
- The peering session between Network A and Network B
is traversing the network of FDDI switches at the IX,
as the networks are not peering across a FDDI switch
that they have in common, and the links are congested.
The above situations are mostly correctable, assuming :
- Additional FDDI ports are available.
- Additional capacity to their network is obtainable.
Other things one can do :
- Peering session can be moved to a FDDI switch that
the two networks have in common.
Don't get me wrong-- certainly one should explore means
of interconnecting beyond the shared medium FDDI option.
The various ATM public peering services seem a viable
way of scaling public peering as it exists today... while
also affording a network the opportunity to put "private
[atm-vc] peering" on their marketing web pages. ;)
This is my personal observation- hope it helps.
>Does anyone care about trying to get packet loss over MAE-East reduced
>any more? Some peers have quite heavy packet loss to them from where
>I'm sitting, and have done for a good while. It seems to me it's
>not a problem with my port, and I don't think I have head of line blocking
>problems, which means it's either a Gigaswitch problem, or their ports
>are simply full. Does anyone still hassle Worldcom and peers about this
>or have we lost hope of ever getting it fixed (i.e. people peer privately
>or hope other exchange points or a replacement will come along).
>GX Networks (formerly Xara Networks)
More information about the NANOG