Re: Bandwidth distribution per ip

[Eric Kuhnke <eric.kuhnke () gmail com>]

This is based on feedback from a colleague that spent several years in
Lebanon and did a fair amount of research into the AS-adjacency paths in
and out of the country, and the OSI layer 1 (submarine fiber to Cyprus,
etc) paths...

It sounds to me like your upstream carrier does not actually have any such
limitation in place and is making a nonsensical excuse, intended for
consumption by less technically savvy persons, as so why they're running
their international transit connections too too close to full.
International connectivity in and our of Beirut is quite costly on a $/Mbps
basis.

If you had the ability to see a traffic chart on one of their upstream
connections I would not be surprised to see that they're running a 10GbE
to, for example, telekom italia/sparkle at 87% utilization.



On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Blake Hudson <blake () ispn net> wrote:

> Denys Fedoryshchenko wrote on 12/20/2017 12:07 PM:
>
> > Still, i am running some dedicated servers on colo in EU/US, some over
> > 10G(bonding),
> > and _single_ ip on server, i never faced such balancing issues, thats why
> > i am asking,
> > if someone had such carrier, who require to balance bandwidth between
> > many ips,
> > with quite high precision, to not lose expensive bandwidth.
>
> I have not heard of this. We typically purchase a connection and bring our
> own IP space. The capacity of the connection and the number of IP addresses
> (if any) are unrelated to each other.
>
> That said, I would find a bonded ethernet connection acceptable in some
> applications. Bonded ethernet generally works well to increase aggregate
> bandwidth when used by multiple hosts whose individual bandwidth is well
> below the speed of each link in the bond. With few hosts, bonded ethernet
> connections are not likely to work well to increase bandwidth and would
> generally be unsuitable for providing connectivity to a single IP/host.