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 throu
> With public peering you simply never know how much spare
> capacity your peer has free.
So with your key peers you talk to them and find out, but
I don't see how this is any different if you have a private
interconnect. Just because you have say a STM-1 into another peer
doesn't mean they ha
> > > With public peering you simply never know how much spare
> > > capacity your peer has free.
> >
> > So? That doesn't make public peering bad, you don't know that
> > for PI or transit either
>
> For PI I know how much spare I have towards them, taking for
> granted they can move the traffi
On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:08:13PM +0200, Alexander Koch wrote:
> With public peering you simply never know how much spare
> capacity your peer has free.
You also never know with private peering: Backbone links.
Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
On Fri, 29 April 2005 13:24:06 +0100, Brandon Butterworth wrote:
> > With public peering you simply never know how much spare
> > capacity your peer has free.
>
> So? That doesn't make public peering bad, you don't know that
> for PI or transit either
For PI I know how much spare I have towards
> With public peering you simply never know how much spare
> capacity your peer has free.
So? That doesn't make public peering bad, you don't know that
for PI or transit either
> And would you expect your
> peer with 400 Mbit/s total to have 400 reserved on his AMSIX
> port for you when you see
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
>
> 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,
priva
> From: Alexander Koch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[..]
> As another matter I do not believe in public peering at all
> when you have flows to a single peer that are ore than half
> of a full GE. Been there, was not at all nice. I guess more
> and more operators will have less and less public IX po
On Thu, 28 April 2005 18:57:53 -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> At the moment, the US IX's largely price their ports as high as the market
> will possibly bear (and then sometimes a few bucks more just as a kick in
> the teeth)
Yeah, what's the issue? US public peering ports are absurdly
o
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 02:11:40PM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 01:51:54PM -0400, Richard A
> Steenbergen wrote:
> > Personally I tend to suspect the general lack of uproar is a rather
> > unfortunate (for them) sign that PAIX is no longer relevant wh
On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 01:51:54PM -0400, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
> Personally I tend to suspect the general lack of uproar is a rather
> unfortunate (for them) sign that PAIX is no longer relevant when it comes
> to critical backbone infrastructures.
I'm not so sure you can draw t
In a message written on Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 01:51:54PM -0400, Richard A
Steenbergen wrote:
> Personally I tend to suspect the general lack of uproar is a rather
> unfortunate (for them) sign that PAIX is no longer relevant when it comes
> to critical backbone infrastructures.
That, or a sign t
On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 10:45:15AM -0400, Jay Patel wrote:
>
> I have heard rumors that S&D has been having persistent switch
> problems with their switches at PAIX (Palo Alto), and I was kind of
> wondering if anyone actually cared?
Personally I tend to suspect the general lack of uproar is a r
> I have heard rumors that S&D has been having persistent switch
> problems with their switches at PAIX (Palo Alto), and I was kind of
> wondering if anyone actually cared?
well, they've sure been having fun up at the six in seattle
randy
I have heard rumors that S&D has been having persistent switch
problems with their switches at PAIX (Palo Alto), and I was kind of
wondering if anyone actually cared?
16 matches
Mail list logo
