 |
 |
I agree this can affect multiple parties. Say we let our port get saturated. Now all the content providers start receiving trouble calls. Netflix, akamai, YouTube, traffic between us and any MICE peer is congested and our customers will probably blame us but they may also blame the other peer who they receive traffic from when it's not their fault. I don't think blocking a port is a good idea but I think proactive notifications is a good first step then more harshly worded emails if that doesn't work. We don't want to let anyone think running a port at 100% is a good idea. It puts a burden on more than just the member with a congested port in my opinion like Ben said. On Wed, Aug 21, 2019, 11:28 AM Ben Wiechman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I would dispute the "only their network" statement. We've troubleshot > various issues in the past with latency and loss, especially for internet > based services used by businesses when that traffic traverses MICE. While > the peering policy of a service provider is their decision, it is > potentially appropriate to provide proactive notice in some fashion that > would alert other operators that they may want to adjust their peering > strategy to minimize customer complaints. > > Is some kind of alarming or reporting viable and useful? From my > perspective it would be 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 7:39 AM Jay Hanke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> ------------------------------ >> >> 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 >