nanog mailing list archives
Re: Upstream bandwidth usage
From: Niels Bakker <niels=nanog () bakker net>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2022 23:08:42 +0200
* mike () mtcc com (Michael Thomas) [Thu 09 Jun 2022, 22:46 CEST]:
If it's so tiny, why shape it aggressively? Why shouldn't I be able to burst to whatever is available at the moment? I would think most users would be happy with that.
As SBC Global's peering policy roughly two decades ago stated,"No requirement for a balanced traffic exchange ratio due primarily to the asymmetric nature of current broadband metallic transmission systems such as ADSL and cable modems."
-- Niels.
Current thread:
- Upstream bandwidth usage Fletcher Kittredge (Jun 09)
- Re: Upstream bandwidth usage Mel Beckman (Jun 09)
- Re: Upstream bandwidth usage Michael Thomas (Jun 09)
- Re: Upstream bandwidth usage Niels Bakker (Jun 09)
- Re: Upstream bandwidth usage Mel Beckman (Jun 09)
- RE: Upstream bandwidth usage Adam Thompson (Jun 09)
- Re: Upstream bandwidth usage Mark Tinka (Jun 09)
- Re: Upstream bandwidth usage Masataka Ohta (Jun 10)
- Re: Upstream bandwidth usage Mike Hammett (Jun 10)
- Re: Upstream bandwidth usage Michael Thomas (Jun 11)
- Re: Upstream bandwidth usage Mike Hammett (Jun 11)
- Re: Upstream bandwidth usage Josh Luthman (Jun 12)
- Re: Upstream bandwidth usage Michael Thomas (Jun 09)
- Re: Upstream bandwidth usage Mel Beckman (Jun 09)