 |
 |
The board talked about this back in the day. The thought process was that remotes affect multiple members so the congestion policy should be enforced. For a participant it's only their network (and their customers). Also, a disconnect might make the overall internet worse as their transit may fill. On Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 11:57 PM [log in to unmask] < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > I know in the past several of us have reached out privately to folks at > DCN about their port saturation, which seems to come and go. > > We do not have a policy about member-port saturation, and my recollection > is similar to Richard's - we didn't want to be bossy about people's peering. > > Cheers, > anthony > > On 8/20/19, 9:05 PM, "Richard Laager" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > On 8/20/19 8:48 PM, Darin Steffl wrote: > > Is there any policy in place for peers that let their ports saturate > at > > 100% for an extended period of time? DCN looks like they could use an > > upgrade to their 10G port and not sure if anyone proactively reaches > out > > to members when saturation occurs. > > I've forwarded your message to DCN. > > For remote switch ports, we have a policy of requiring upgrades before > saturation. > > For regular participants, I'm not sure that we have a policy. > > I'm also not sure if we want a policy there, as that might be > considered > dictating peering policy. I'm not personally opposed, but this is > something that would need some thought. > > -- > Richard > > >