|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical [no subject]
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 topic. 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 Internet traffic. Unfortunately, both these solutions require cooperation, which is in short supply. > 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. [email protected] Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32 [email protected] Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|