 |
 |
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Justin Krejci <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > More or less, yes depending on how much bandwidth demand actually increases. > That said I think we should just wait for a bit and see what the demand > looks like over the next week. I've been upgrading all of USI's transit > links to 10 gig links (almost done) and so we will have some excess capacity > for a while, that coupled with the UMN contributing to bandwidth should be > enough to keep things going for now without further issue for a while. I think we should line up 2 or maybe 3 carriers to open up the Akamai route and that we should do it right away. -U of M isn't offering full transit, just access over their peering network -I think sharing the load is a good idea i.e. it's very cooperative, also providing bandwidth makes a carrier "invested" in the exchange -The connections are relatively easy to add and we're in a building where bandwidth is close infinite and everyone buys a gig when they really only need 250 Mb/s -It is a LOT of work to beg for bandwidth from carriers. Also, striking when there is an issue to resolve yields much better results than saying it is for growth. I'd rather spend my time recruiting new carriers. -From a TE standpoint, if i was picking up hundreds of mb/s from an Akamai cluster, I would want to contribute my bandwidth to make sure it stays operational -Getting management buy in doesn't mean that we are required to use the BW, we can have carriers ready with their upstream filters updated and advertise the route when the time comes. Jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1