Making interconnection agreements between networks more dynamic

LHC (k9m) large.hadron.collider at
Tue May 23 22:16:39 UTC 2017

You need an extra 9 lines to handle the overrun.

On May 23, 2017 12:10:52 PM PDT, valdis.kletnieks at wrote:
>On Tue, 23 May 2017 15:07:14 -0300, Pedro de Botelho Marcos said:
>> Dynamic agreements offer many opportunities. For example, consider
>> acquiring extra "bandwidth as a service" that is available on demand
>> when one needs it, similarly to how one might spin up extra VMs in
>> cloud to handle high loads.
>In computer science, all problems can be solved by adding a level of
>You've now changed it from lengthy discussion about the connection, to
>discussion about which dynamic agreements both sides are willing to
>Hint:  You can't discuss "bandwidth as a service" without both sides
>about how much burst capacity might be needed, because the capacity
>would *still*
>require over-provisioning in order to be available if needed.  If both
>of the link have 1G optics, you're not going to burst to 10G no matter
>many dynamic agreements you have.

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

More information about the NANOG mailing list