Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX

["Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>]

On Sep 17, 2013, at 11:04 , Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org> wrote:
> On 17/09/2013 14:43, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> > And yes, DE-CIX is more than well aware everyone thinks this is .. uh ..
> > let's just call it "silly" for now, although most would use far more
> > disparaging words. Which is probably why no serious IXP does it.
>
> It's not silly

We disagree.


> it's just not what everyone else does

I don't think anyone else does 2 minutes, but happy to be educated otherwise.


> so it's not
> possible to directly compare stats with other ixps.  I'm all in favour of
> using short (but technically sensible) sampling intervals for internal
> monitoring, but there are good reasons to use 300s / ingress sum for
> prettypics intended for public consumption.

Your IXP (network, whatever), you decision. Use 2 second timers for all I care.

Unfortunately, DE-CIX has done exactly what you said - compared themselves to other IXPs using that apples-to-oranges 
comparison. There are words for that sort of thing, but they are impolite, and I otherwise like the people at DE-CIX, 
so I shall let each NANOG-ite decide how to view such, um, tactics.

-- 
TTFN,
patrick

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail