On Sun, 6 June 2004 16:56:25 +0200, Simon Leinen wrote: [..] > Could you explain why you feel traffic over a 10G port to a public > exchange is harder to "secure"? E.g. compared to traffic over a 1G > port to a public exchange, or traffic over ten 1G private peerings. > I fail to figure this one out.
Think about it - with one or two 1G ports the usual flow is still some hundreds Mbit/s, the typical load above 400 quite often - too much for a public exchange already in my humble opinion (per peer). Then one of the exchanges goes down, now you send traffic to 5 peers with 150-250 Mbit/s each on another exchange, together with some 2 other operators as they have more than one peering with the same peers that you have. Do you believe that everyone has their 1G ports at, say, 100 Mbit/s only, just to have capacity free for the rerouting of other operators? From experience, no, hardly. With private ports failover scenarios just work... you know what you have, and you plan ahead. That is what I mean with 'securing' traffic. If an interconnect breaks, I know who is to blame. With some exchanges I feel secure, with some I do not, and if .5 Gig traffic goes to other exchanges, how many times did we overload the other peers' ports in the past? It all depends on your traffic levels. Yet was this hard to work out? Rather not... -ako _______________________________________________ swinog mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.init7.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
