 |
 |
I think there is some confusion – the original thread was talking about DCN, not SDN. SDN is a long-time MICE member and hasn’t ever had any issues that I recall.
From: MICE Discuss <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Gary Glissendorf <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: MICE Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 3:45 PM
To: MICE Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Saturated ports
I noticed this thread today but wasn’t sure what topic started the thread. SDN like Corey said our customers report latency, packet loss quickly if we have saturation. We monitor and alert on network saturation at 60% and if needed we
adjust prefix advertisements until we can find the proper balance and then increase bandwidth when needed. We have not developed a cool automatic was to do this yet but we rarely have issues with Peaks or DDoS Attacks. It’s the occasional fiber cuts that
can cause us issues and the need to adjust bandwidth.
What was topic that started the Thread about BW and reports.
Gary Glissendorf
| Network Architect
[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
2900 W. 10th St. | Sioux Falls, SD 57104
(w) 605.978.3558
|
(c) 605.359-3737
|
(tf) 800.247.1442
SDN NOC 877.287.8023
NOC Support email: [log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]
“Ausgezeichnet Zueinander Sein”
From: MICE Discuss <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Corey Hauer
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2019 3:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MICE-DISCUSS] Saturated ports
Honestly, as an eyeball network, I would fix saturating that pipe that by filtering prefixes or adding capacity. My customers would vote with their feet if we started having packet loss or adverse latency because we filled our IX facing
pipes. I can't imagine SDN and their members choosing to endure thousands of customer complaints.
SDN is a well run, well capitalized network - they'll fix it one way or another. I am sure once this lands on the right person's desk - it gets fixed.
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:17 PM Ben Wiechman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Is it possible to send a weekly/monthly reporting showing a high water mark for utilization for each member? Is that appropriate? Or do we just ask each member to monitor the utilization graphs if this is of interest to them?
For my part it is easier to ingest and handle a periodic review if we are pushed the information versus having to have someone remember to go and pull the information. I'm interested in what others would find useful.
Ben Wiechman
Director of IP Strategy and Engineering
320.247.3224 | [log in to unmask]
Arvig | 224 East Main Street | Melrose, MN 56352 | arvig.com
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 1:59 PM Jay Hanke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> To be clear, I was not advocating for punitive action, and we can go and pull the bandwidth reports periodically. I was just posing the question regarding whether a more proactive stance regarding visibility would be appropriate.
What would you propose?
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
***This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, use or distribution of the information included in this message is prohibited -- Please immediately and
permanently delete.***
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1