common method to count traffic volume on IX

Tue Sep 17 18:15:14 UTC 2013

On Sep 17, 2013, at 12:11 , Martin T <m4rtntns at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks for all the replies!
> 
> 
> Nick,
> 
> counting traffic on inter-switch links is kind of cheating, isn't it?
> I mean if "input bytes" and "output bytes" on all the ports facing the
> IX members are already counted, then counting traffic on links between
> the switches in fabric will count some of the traffic multiple times.
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> how does smaller sampling period help to show more traffic volume on
> switch fabric? Or do you mean that in case of shorter sampling periods
> the traffic peaks are not averaged out and thus peak in and peak out
> traffic levels remain higher?

The graph has a bigger peak, and DE-CIX has claimed "see, we are bigger" using such graphs. Not only did they not caveat the fact they were using a non-standard sampling method, they have refused to change when confronted or even say what their traffic would be with a 300 second timer.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

> On 9/17/13, Nick Hilliard <nick at foobar.org> wrote:
>> On 17/09/2013 14:43, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>>> And yes, DE-CIX is more than well aware everyone thinks this is .. uh ..
>>> let's just call it "silly" for now, although most would use far more
>>> disparaging words. Which is probably why no serious IXP does it.
>> 
>> It's not silly - it's just not what everyone else does, so it's not
>> possible to directly compare stats with other ixps.  I'm all in favour of
>> using short (but technically sensible) sampling intervals for internal
>> monitoring, but there are good reasons to use 300s / ingress sum for
>> prettypics intended for public consumption.
>> 
>> Nick
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20130917/08639fd3/attachment.sig>