On May 18, 2011, at 2:52 PM, Steve Howard wrote:
> The traffic to/from the U shot up today. I'm guessing that is CDN related?
>
> The link between the CNS switch and the MICE switch shot up to ~850Mbps
> today. Too bad that is only a single gig connection!
>
> It is great to have the traffic on the exchange, but we should probably
> deal with this nearly saturated link fast. Here are a few possible
> solutions:
>
> 1) Add another Gig connection. We'd probably need to pay FWR for a
> cross-connect (CNS is paying for the first one) with this option;
>
> 2) Use one of the new Juniper switches with a 10Gig interface and
> connect that to a 10Gig interface on the existing MICE 10Gig switch,
> then move some of the 1Gig members over to those ports. This would
> require purchase of 10Gig optics for the Juniper and the existing 10Gig
> MICE switch;
>
> 3) Move some of the higher bandwidth MICE members to the 1Gig ports on
> the 10Gig switch. Would this increase the FWR cross-connect charges
> for those members if they are going from copper to fiber?
>
> 4) Encourage MICE members on the 1Gig switch to upgrade to a 10Gig
> connection;
>
> 5) Ask the U to not advertise some of the members on the 1Gig switch to
> CDNs (if that is the cause of the traffic load). This is a bummer if
> you are one of the networks that gets left out. I really don't like
> this option -- we are finally getting real traffic on the exchange and
> then we'd be cutting back.
>
> What does everybody think? Any other suggestions?
>
To the extent that my input is useful, I encourage option 2.
I believe this is the more scalable longer-term solution and does not represent
a significantly higher cost than any of the others will in relatively short order.
Owen
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
|