North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
- From: Unknown
- Date: Mon May 22 23:37:58 2006
But as far as I know, there is no serious data available on internal
versus external traffic of ISPs. In the ISP I partly own, most of the
traffic is external. Where dial-up users POP their email from the
server locally, the email still came via other providers to the server.
> Where is the data on packet losses experienced by traffic that does not go
> through public exchange points?
As far as I know, there is no data on how much traffic goes through
public versus private exchange points. But, we should encourage more
exchange points of every kind.
> If 30% loss impacts are noticeable, what should be done to eliminate the
> losses or reduce their impacts on Web performance and reliability?
The losses are noticable. What _should_ be done is fairly well known.
We've been talking about it for years. I've been fairly active on the
Link speeds do not increase at the rate of Internet traffic. Merely
making the links faster is doomed to fail.
Routing performance will not increase at the rate of Internet traffic.
Merely adding links between the same places is doomed to fail.
Resource reservation on already congested links is doomed to fail.
Resource reservation on many short flows is doomed to fail.
We need providers to share faster links, such as inter-continental.
By the very nature of Internet traffic multiplexing, it is better to
share one bigger link than many smaller ones. Traffic shaping would
ensure each provider getting their "fair share".
We need more exchanges, both public and private. There should be one or
more major public exchanges in every metropolitan area. Massive
parallel inter-connections. More robust in the case of link failure and
as backhoe protection. It's the only way we can scale at the rate of
Unfortunately, both these solutions require cooperation, which is in
> Are packet losses due mainly to transient queue buffer overflows of user
> traffic or to discards by overburdened routing processors or something else?
Most of the packet losses I see and have verified are _link_
underprovisioning! That is, providers have sold more subscriber
connections than they can carry to other providers, and subscribers have
bought links that are too small for the amount of traffic they generate.
I've seen the provider version of the problem a lot more often than I've
seen the subscriber problem.
> What does Merit mean when they say that some of these losses are
> intentional because of settlement issues?
In some cases, the decision to keep the small congested link to other
providers appears to be political and deliberate.
> Are ISPs cooperating
> intelligently in the carriage of Internet traffic, or are ISPs competing
> destructively, to the detriment of them and their customers?
Major ISPs are not cooperating very well. Regional ISPs are doing a
better job of cooperating. There are plenty of examples of both.
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -