nanog mailing list archives
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:38:04 +0100
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
Current thread:
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX, (continued)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Patrick W. Gilmore (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Tom Taylor (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Michael Hallgren (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Michael Hallgren (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Leo Bicknell (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Peter Kristolaitis (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Niels Bakker (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Leo Bicknell (Sep 18)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Niels Bakker (Sep 18)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Stephen Fulton (Sep 18)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Nick Hilliard (Sep 18)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Niels Bakker (Sep 19)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Nick Hilliard (Sep 18)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Patrick W. Gilmore (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Niels Bakker (Sep 18)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Randy Bush (Sep 18)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Randy Bush (Sep 18)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Niels Bakker (Sep 19)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Will Hargrave (Sep 19)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX sthaug (Sep 19)