PAIX Outages

Stephen J. Wilcox steve at telecomplete.co.uk
Fri Apr 29 20:29:22 UTC 2005


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




More information about the NANOG mailing list