Print

Print
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