North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: BBN Peering issues
- From: sysadmin
- Date: Mon Aug 17 12:30:13 1998
you keep missing the most obvious interpretation:
1.85% of exodus's output goes to bbn.
10-30% of bbn's input is from exodus.
this may still be a ridiculous figure, but maybe not, if exodus is hosting
of the top 100 web sites.
From: Dan Ritter <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Robert Bowman <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Friday, August 14, 1998 1:54 PM
Subject: Re: BBN Peering issues
>At 12:10 PM 19980813 -0700, Robert Bowman wrote:
>>I am referring to output of Exodus traffic relative to input of BBN
>>not vice versa. Exodus consumes very little of BBN's output (Exodus
>>Isn't that the "supposed" problem? Our private exchange statistics show
>>very simply, if BBN disconnects, it will drop our traffic by 1.85%. I
>>speak for certain about BBN's traffic input as an aggregate, that is why
>>I stated below that we are estimating.
>>> >off. Let's face the facts, BBN is only 1.85% of my traffic. By all
>>> >we estimate to be in the area of 10-30% of their traffic. Lots of
>>> >actually see a massively inverted benefit scale in this particular
>It seems intuitively reasonable to me that 1.85% of Exodus input comes from
>No arguments there. I would like to know where the "By all accounts, we
>to be in the area of 10-30% of their traffic." sentence comes from. Are you
>that 10-30% of BBN's total output goes to Exodus? Or that 10-30% of Exodus
>goes to BBN?
>The first scenario is ridiculous. The second scenario is possible, but I
>it is closer to 10% than 30%.
>...Still not speaking for the company...