That's generally good idea, but average TCP session speed depends not only your side of connection, but another side as well.
On 18.04.15 07:58, Mark Tinka wrote: > > > On 17/Apr/15 15:05, Max Tulyev wrote: >> One more interesting thing. >> >> If you buy IP transit, mostly you are paying by exact bandwidth, per >> megabit. If you buy IX peering port, you are paying for port. This means >> Tranist ports are overloaded or close to it, while IX ports usually >> always have some extra free capacity. >> >> In practice, this mean if your customer download some file using IX way, >> speed will be much higher that same file reachable by IP transit. > > This depends entirely on how you run your network. If you run links hot, > you can't guarantee anything (keeping in mind that your less congested > exchange point ports does not mean other exchange point members are in > the same position also). > > We, for example, buy transit or peer with a minimum of 10Gbps port, with > the ability to push traffic at line rate if needed. We do not allow > ports to run hot (typically upgrading them anywhere from between 50% - > 70% utilization). I appreciate that not everyone can be in this > position, while others can be even more aggressive with their > "over-engineering", but this kind of information is hard to quantify > reliably. > > There is also backhaul from the interconnect point into the backbone to > think about, but that follows a similar strategy. > > Mark. > >
