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