Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
Randy, On 18/09/2013 03:39, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: somehow, a serious case of testosterone poisoning combined with insane goal drift has hit a number of the large european exchanges. instead of the goal being how well they serve their local communities, they have gone wild with sleazy means of having traffic contests, doing really sick attempts at techno-colonial expansion into foreign countries and continents, ... instead of running a public service, they think they are running competitive commercial enterprises. imiho, the members should be up in arms. I find this rant hilarious given your position during the attempted commercial buy out of the London Internet Exchange! Others might class it as rubbish! The European exchanges are responding to a demand that is being created by US operators (many of which are members), there is a gap that is perceived that the model used in Europe (quite successfully I would add) may fill. By all means, if there are other companies that can fill this demand they should get their plans rolling. As for local communities - the Internet itself is a local community which we all do our best to serve. if you are jealous of commercial expansion, then send your resume to equinix. Sheesh! I've sent them mine but they said my approach to commercial expansion was too aggressive! Oh dear! ;) Regaards, Neil. (oh and yes I am a non-exec of the LINX but I'm speaking personally (but you knew that already right?))
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
* ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) [Thu 19 Sep 2013, 03:16 CEST]: you gotta love the amsix hkg charlie foxtrot. and how is that working out financially for the amsix members, the folk in the amsterdam area the amsix purportedly serves, niels? All relevant paperwork including business plans was made available to the full membership and you can download it at my.ams-ix.net. I know you're a busy man so the tl;dr is that by encouraging local peering more networks will start to peer, and by partnering with one or more local carriers those new networks as well as established players in those markets can connect to the home exchange point too, increasing value for all connected parties. Also, what Neil J. McRae said in his email in this thread. Regards, -- Niels.
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
* n...@foobar.org (Nick Hilliard) [Thu 19 Sep 2013, 01:38 CEST]: On 18/09/2013 23:55, Niels Bakker wrote: Ding ding ding! And that's why honest IXPs graph both, to show that they have no packet loss on their inter-switch links. If in out, it's not necessarily inter-switch packet loss. The difference between the two will also include packet loss for same-switch egress traffic on customer ports. That's absolutely true, I was a bit too glib in the quoted mail. -- Niels.
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
On 19 Sep 2013, at 12:32, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote: I know you're a busy man so the tl;dr is that by encouraging local peering more networks will start to peer, and by partnering with one or more local carriers those new networks as well as established players in those markets can connect to the home exchange point too, increasing value for all connected parties. But isn't this all just neo-colonialism? Establish a market in the colony, but ensure through restrictive trade practices that all trade routes lead back via the mother country. Or can I buy myself connectivity to AMS-IX Amsterdam when i'm present at the LINX Harare exchange? Will
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
But isn't this all just neo-colonialism? Establish a market in the colony, but ensure through restrictive trade practices that all trade routes lead back via the mother country. Or can I buy myself connectivity to AMS-IX Amsterdam when i'm present at the LINX Harare exchange? There are multiple providers offering remote access to LINX, AMS-IX and probably several other European IXes. We're using one of these ourselves. I have no specific info on LINX Harare :-) Steinar Haug, AS 2116
common method to count traffic volume on IX
One other important point to note. Anyone can turn up an exchange in N/A and be supported by the same. So far, only the current cadre of IXP's have stepped up to help. US entities are instead busy acquiring meet- me rooms to further box us all in even more. http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2013/09/17/cologix-acquires-jax-meet-me-room/ Best, -M On Thursday, September 19, 2013, Neil J. McRae wrote: Randy, On 18/09/2013 03:39, Randy Bush ra...@psg.com wrote: somehow, a serious case of testosterone poisoning combined with insane goal drift has hit a number of the large european exchanges. instead of the goal being how well they serve their local communities, they have gone wild with sleazy means of having traffic contests, doing really sick attempts at techno-colonial expansion into foreign countries and continents, ... instead of running a public service, they think they are running competitive commercial enterprises. imiho, the members should be up in arms. I find this rant hilarious given your position during the attempted commercial buy out of the London Internet Exchange! Others might class it as rubbish! The European exchanges are responding to a demand that is being created by US operators (many of which are members), there is a gap that is perceived that the model used in Europe (quite successfully I would add) may fill. By all means, if there are other companies that can fill this demand they should get their plans rolling. As for local communities - the Internet itself is a local community which we all do our best to serve. if you are jealous of commercial expansion, then send your resume to equinix. Sheesh! I've sent them mine but they said my approach to commercial expansion was too aggressive! Oh dear! ;) Regaards, Neil. (oh and yes I am a non-exec of the LINX but I'm speaking personally (but you knew that already right?))
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
On Sep 17, 2013, at 3:15 PM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote: I don't know of any IXP that does this. Industry standard is as you and others wrote before: the 5-minute counter difference on all customer-facing ports, publishing both input and output bps and pps. I guess MRTG is to 'blame' for these values more than anything. Serious question, at an IXP shouldn't IN = OUT nearly perfectly? Most exchanges do everything possible to eliminate broadcast packets, and they don't allow multicast on the unicast VLAN's. So properly behaved you have a bunch of routers speaking unicast to each other. The only way to get a difference is if there is packet loss, IN - loss = OUT. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
* bickn...@ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) [Wed 18 Sep 2013, 19:23 CEST]: On Sep 17, 2013, at 3:15 PM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote: I don't know of any IXP that does this. Industry standard is as you and others wrote before: the 5-minute counter difference on all customer-facing ports, publishing both input and output bps and pps. I guess MRTG is to 'blame' for these values more than anything. Serious question, at an IXP shouldn't IN = OUT nearly perfectly? Ding ding ding! And that's why honest IXPs graph both, to show that they have no packet loss on their inter-switch links. (Or, much more likely, measurement errors due to wrong config for the grapher) -- Niels.
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
On 18/09/2013 18:23, Leo Bicknell wrote: Serious question, at an IXP shouldn't IN = OUT nearly perfectly? if you host multicast on your unicast peering lan, then this will be affected by the unicast:multicast ratio and the number of recipient ports. Most networks which support multicast will also support multicast pruning, so in reality this counts for very little. Most IXPs rely on unicast flooding to determine forwarding paths, which adds a little to the outbound numbers. So on these IXPs, outbound aggregate is usually a tiny amount larger than inbound aggregate. The larger the network, the smaller this effect. And on networks which precompute forwarding paths, the in and out aggregate figures will be equal +/- counter entropy. Nick
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
* ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) [Wed 18 Sep 2013, 04:39 CEST]: somehow, a serious case of testosterone poisoning combined with insane goal drift has hit a number of the large european exchanges. instead of the goal being how well they serve their local communities, they have gone wild with sleazy means of having traffic contests, doing really sick attempts at techno-colonial expansion into foreign countries and continents, ... instead of running a public service, they think they are running competitive commercial enterprises. imiho, the members should be up in arms. if you are jealous of commercial expansion, then send your resume to equinix. sheesh! Wow Randy, you really misunderstand the situation in Europe and the reasons behind the horizon expansions, and I'm surprised by your advocacy of American hegemony in a market where that really doesn't exist (those of independent not-for-profit internet exchanges). If only you worked for a company that allowed you input into the decision processes of all these member-driven associations! -- Niels.
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
Ding ding ding! And that's why honest IXPs graph both, to show that they have no packet loss on their inter-switch links. It depends on what is being measured. At TorIX we'll see deviations between in/out on our aggregate graph. As we combine all peer ports to form the aggregate graph, any large deviations are almost always due to peers who have reached capacity limits on their port (which is not always port speed, btw, always include their transport behind the port). Another common reason is the difference in measurement times across all ports. http://www.torix.ca/stats.php -- Stephen On 18/09/2013 6:55 PM, Niels Bakker wrote: * bickn...@ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) [Wed 18 Sep 2013, 19:23 CEST]: On Sep 17, 2013, at 3:15 PM, Niels Bakker niels=na...@bakker.net wrote: I don't know of any IXP that does this. Industry standard is as you and others wrote before: the 5-minute counter difference on all customer-facing ports, publishing both input and output bps and pps. I guess MRTG is to 'blame' for these values more than anything. Serious question, at an IXP shouldn't IN = OUT nearly perfectly? Ding ding ding! And that's why honest IXPs graph both, to show that they have no packet loss on their inter-switch links. (Or, much more likely, measurement errors due to wrong config for the grapher) -- Niels.
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
On 18/09/2013 23:55, Niels Bakker wrote: Ding ding ding! And that's why honest IXPs graph both, to show that they have no packet loss on their inter-switch links. If in out, it's not necessarily inter-switch packet loss. The difference between the two will also include packet loss for same-switch egress traffic on customer ports. Nick
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
somehow, a serious case of testosterone poisoning combined with insane goal drift has hit a number of the large european exchanges. instead of the goal being how well they serve their local communities, they have gone wild with sleazy means of having traffic contests, doing really sick attempts at techno-colonial expansion into foreign countries and continents, ... instead of running a public service, they think they are running competitive commercial enterprises. imiho, the members should be up in arms. if you are jealous of commercial expansion, then send your resume to equinix. sheesh! Wow Randy, you really misunderstand the situation in Europe and the reasons behind the horizon expansions, and I'm surprised by your advocacy of American hegemony in a market where that really doesn't exist (those of independent not-for-profit internet exchanges). yes, the american hegemony in angola, kenya, hong kong, ... you gotta love the amsix hkg charlie foxtrot. trying to open up the us market by going to the states to enter it is a fun adventure. but as it's a rather crowded market, it's not for the faint of heart. but it is a market that would benefit from a bit more competition. and puhleeze get more competition into tokyo, jeez! but i think it is crazy for a local european exchange to take on the white man's burden of exporting freedom to virginia (or wherever), especially without bombing it first. randy
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
you gotta love the amsix hkg charlie foxtrot. and how is that working out financially for the amsix members, the folk in the amsterdam area the amsix purportedly serves, niels? randy
common method to count traffic volume on IX
Hi, many Internet exchange points post publicly available graphs which describe aggregated traffic volumes on IX. For example: Netnod: http://www.netnod.se/ix-stats/sums/ AMS-IX: https://www.ams-ix.net/technical/statistics LINX: https://www.linx.net/pubtools/trafficstats.html Is there a common method to count this traffic on a switch-fabric? Just read all the switch interface packets input counters with an interval to get the aggregated input traffic and read all the switch interfaces packets output counters to get the aggregated output traffic? regards, Martin
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
On Tue, 17 Sep 2013, Martin T wrote: Is there a common method to count this traffic on a switch-fabric? Just read all the switch interface packets input counters with an interval to get the aggregated input traffic and read all the switch interfaces packets output counters to get the aggregated output traffic? Yes, as far as I have understood it's a sum of all traffic on all customer-facing ports. -- Mikael Abrahamssonemail: swm...@swm.pp.se
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
On 17/09/2013 11:52, Martin T wrote: Is there a common method to count this traffic on a switch-fabric? Just read all the switch interface packets input counters with an interval to get the aggregated input traffic and read all the switch interfaces packets output counters to get the aggregated output traffic? most IXPs count this as the sum of all ingress packets over a period of 300 seconds. A small number of IXPs do different stuff, e.g. different sampling interval or counting traffic on inter-switch links. Nick
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
On Sep 17, 2013, at 07:02 , Nick Hilliard n...@foobar.org wrote: On 17/09/2013 11:52, Martin T wrote: Is there a common method to count this traffic on a switch-fabric? Just read all the switch interface packets input counters with an interval to get the aggregated input traffic and read all the switch interfaces packets output counters to get the aggregated output traffic? most IXPs count this as the sum of all ingress packets over a period of 300 seconds. A small number of IXPs do different stuff, e.g. different sampling interval or counting traffic on inter-switch links. I am unaware of any IXP that uses a smaller sampling period (presumably in an attempt to make their IXP look bigger) other than DE-CIX. Is there another one? 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. -- TTFN, patrick signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
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? regards, Martin On 9/17/13, Nick Hilliard n...@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
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
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
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
On Sep 17, 2013, at 11:04 , Nick Hilliard n...@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 We disagree. it's just not what everyone else does I don't think anyone else does 2 minutes, but happy to be educated otherwise. 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. Your IXP (network, whatever), you decision. Use 2 second timers for all I care. Unfortunately, DE-CIX has done exactly what you said - compared themselves to other IXPs using that apples-to-oranges comparison. There are words for that sort of thing, but they are impolite, and I otherwise like the people at DE-CIX, so I shall let each NANOG-ite decide how to view such, um, tactics. -- TTFN, patrick signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
On Sep 17, 2013, at 12:11 , Martin T m4rtn...@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 n...@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 signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
On 17/09/2013 2:15 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: On Sep 17, 2013, at 12:11 , Martin T m4rtn...@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. That's easy to counter. just estimate some characteristics of the distribution from the sample, then apply extreme value theory to renormalize to 300 s. (My math background talking. I once got similar stuff written into an ITU-T recommendation for provisioning trunk groups based on limited traffic samples.) Tom T.
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
On 9/17/2013 2:51 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote: In a message written on Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 07:11:23PM +0300, Martin T wrote: 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. Sounds like a marketing opportunity. customer--s1--s2--s3--s4--s5--s6--s7--s8--s9--s10--customer Presto, highest volume IX! Maybe I should patent that idea. Why do you have 10 48-port switches, 239 VLANs, but only 2 peers? Uhh... for accounting reasons.
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
In a message written on Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 07:11:23PM +0300, Martin T wrote: 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. Sounds like a marketing opportunity. customer--s1--s2--s3--s4--s5--s6--s7--s8--s9--s10--customer Presto, highest volume IX! Maybe I should patent that idea. -- Leo Bicknell - bickn...@ufp.org - CCIE 3440 PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/ pgpVcE7xwywbv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
In a message written on Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 07:11:23PM +0300, Martin T wrote: 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. I don't know of any IXP that does this. Industry standard is as you and others wrote before: the 5-minute counter difference on all customer-facing ports, publishing both input and output bps and pps. I guess MRTG is to 'blame' for these values more than anything. * bickn...@ufp.org (Leo Bicknell) [Tue 17 Sep 2013, 20:52 CEST]: Sounds like a marketing opportunity. customer--s1--s2--s3--s4--s5--s6--s7--s8--s9--s10--customer Presto, highest volume IX! Highest latency too, and here's to hoping all those devices actually work - it'll sure be an interesting exercise to find out wat switch in the path dropped a frame - you might as well just multiply your stats to get the same effect -- Niels.
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 17/09/2013 20:15, Patrick W. Gilmore a écrit : Hi, Good reading, to get an idea: https://www1.ethz.ch/csg/people/dimitroc/papers/p95pam.pdf Section 3, mainly. Cheers, mh -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlI45KgACgkQZNZ/rrgsqae9JQCghTqXy8+bL6eq95ZD/DHvbTCx izwAniJ1Fiq1zsbZmewT464eG/S4RinZ =R+r3 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Le 17/09/2013 20:15, Patrick W. Gilmore a écrit : On Sep 17, 2013, at 12:11 , Martin T m4rtn...@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? Hi, Good reading, to get an idea: https://www1.ethz.ch/csg/people/dimitroc/papers/p95pam.pdf Section 3, mainly. Cheers, mh 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. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlI45K0ACgkQZNZ/rrgsqaeSAQCfR93/ksBGa1KRW6P6zLR2cRwG 2fEAnRlZMtamameFoQgVdYZwTKD7Lb1b =UVol -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
somehow, a serious case of testosterone poisoning combined with insane goal drift has hit a number of the large european exchanges. instead of the goal being how well they serve their local communities, they have gone wild with sleazy means of having traffic contests, doing really sick attempts at techno-colonial expansion into foreign countries and continents, ... instead of running a public service, they think they are running competitive commercial enterprises. imiho, the members should be up in arms. if you are jealous of commercial expansion, then send your resume to equinix. sheesh! randy
