nanog mailing list archives
Re: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management
From: Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:50:30 +0200
On 15 October 2015 at 16:35, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick () ianai net> wrote:
The 100% number is silly. My guess? They’re at 98%. That is easily do-able because all the traffic is coming from them. Coordinate the HTTPd on each of the servers to serve traffic at X bytes per second, ensure you have enough buffer in the switches for micro-bursts, check the NICs for silliness such as jitter, and so on. It is non-trivial, but definitely solvable.
You would not need to control the servers to do this. All you need is the usual hash function of src+dst ip+port to map sessions into buckets and then dynamically compute how big a fraction of the buckets to route through a different path. A bit surprising that this is not a standard feature on routers. Regards, Baldur
Current thread:
- Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management Baptiste Jonglez (Oct 15)
- Re: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 15)
- Re: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management Baldur Norddahl (Oct 15)
- Re: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 15)
- Re: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management Baldur Norddahl (Oct 15)
- Re: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 15)
- Re: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management Baldur Norddahl (Oct 15)
- Re: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management Patrick W. Gilmore (Oct 15)
- Re: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management Mark Tinka (Oct 15)
- Re: Google's peering, GGC, and congestion management Mark Tinka (Oct 15)