nanog mailing list archives
RE: C&W Peering Problem?
From: "Scott Patterson" <scottp () netrail net>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 17:19:57 -0400
I didn't see this as an explicit requirement, but less clueful backbones (Genuity, PSI, and now C&W) do tend to drop peering sessions with other backbones that push far more traffic than they pull.
Read section IV of their policy again: IV. Traffic Requirements A. Each peering connection speed shall be at least 155 Mbps. B. The traffic volume at each peering connection shall be at least 45 Mbps. C. The aggregated traffic ratio shall not exceed a ratio of 2 : 1 D. Traffic volumes shall be measured in either direction, inbound or outbound, whichever is higher, on a weekly aggregated average basis over all the points where the parties exchange traffic Point C says 2:1, but D says they don't care in which direction its in, it just has to be balanced. -Scott
Current thread:
- C&W Peering Problem? Charles Scott (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? Charles Scott (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? David Diaz (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? Simon Lockhart (Jun 01)
- RE: C&W Peering Problem? Jason Lewis (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? Christopher A. Woodfield (Jun 01)
- RE: C&W Peering Problem? Scott Patterson (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? Christian Nielsen (Jun 05)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? Simon Lockhart (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? Bill Woodcock (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? David Diaz (Jun 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: C&W Peering Problem? Karyn Ulriksen (Jun 01)
- RE: C&W Peering Problem? Sean Donelan (Jun 01)
- RE: C&W Peering Problem? Steve Schaefer (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? Jeff Mcadams (Jun 02)
- RE: C&W Peering Problem? Sean Donelan (Jun 01)
- RE: C&W Peering Problem? Vivien M. (Jun 01)
- Re: C&W Peering Problem? Christopher A. Woodfield (Jun 02)
- RE: C&W Peering Problem? Vivien M. (Jun 01)