nanog mailing list archives
RE: State of QoS peering in Nanog
From: "Stefan Fouant" <sfouant () shortestpathfirst net>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 12:40:14 -0400
-----Original Message----- From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bicknell () ufp org] Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 5:56 PM In an IP network, the bandwidth constraints are almost always across an administrative boundary. This means in the majority of the case across transit circuits, not peering. 80-90% of the packet loss in the network happens at the end user access port, inbound or outbound. Another 5-10% occurs where regional or non-transit free providers buy transit. Lastly, 3-5% occurs where there are geographic or geopolitical issues (oceans to cross, country boarders with restrictive governments to cross).
Hi Leo, I think you bring up some interesting points here, and my experience and observations largely lend credence to what you are saying. I'd like to know however, just for my own personal knowledge, are the numbers you are using above based on some broad analysis or study of multiple providers, or are you deriving these numbers likewise you're your own personal observations? Thanks, Stefan Fouant
Current thread:
- State of QoS peering in Nanog Francois Menard (Apr 02)
- Re: State of QoS peering in Nanog Leo Bicknell (Apr 02)
- Re: State of QoS peering in Nanog Jeff Wheeler (Apr 02)
- Re: State of QoS peering in Nanog Leo Bicknell (Apr 02)
- RE: State of QoS peering in Nanog Stefan Fouant (Apr 03)
- Re: State of QoS peering in Nanog Jim Gettys (Apr 04)
- Re: State of QoS peering in Nanog Jeff Wheeler (Apr 02)
- Re: State of QoS peering in Nanog Leo Bicknell (Apr 02)
- RE: State of QoS peering in Nanog Stefan Fouant (Apr 03)