 |
 |
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