North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Any from PSI on this list?
Sure this would be a great idea if you could get them to buy off on the idea that peering is worth a second or third router (~80k router + ~5k port/month). My question is "What about the RA?". :) The whole idea was to remove the load issues, flap and dampening problems, etc from the routers and move it to a CPU only box. Granted there are other things to look at, which we don't need to get into with this thread but at least it would be a temp solution. IMHO. BTW Whoever sent that mail about BBN peering. They just added two more routers to relax the CPU issues at MAE_EAST. You may want to email again. Todd R. Stroup Fiber Network Solutions, Inc. On Mon, 16 Jun 1997, Wayne Bouchard wrote: > I've heard this from various networks as well. While I find it > annoying, it does serve usefull purposes. More peering sessions mean > higher CPU load. higher CPU load can mean more instability within the > router. When the router crashes or otherwise reboots, it takes it > longer to resynchronize which means longer delays in convergance and > poorer overall service. Limiting the number of peering sessions on > really busy routers is a benefit, not a problem. The only thing that > could be asked of them would be that they investigate installing a > second router to offload some of the peering sessions so they don't > have such a backlog of requests and maybe provide load balancing. if > they are accepting applications, they need to provide facilities for > those requests to be implemented. > > However, I still second the comment below.. > > > Please commend PSI for not making the situation at the MAEs worse, don't > > criticize them. By connecting any more peers at ME/MW, it will simply > > add to the packetloss levels for all of us. > > > > Rob > > > > > > Alex, > > > > > > We executed peering agreements with PSI in May (1997) for peering at > > > MAE-EAST and MAE-WEST (signed, mailed, etc...) > > > > > > One of our engineers contacted them last week to turn up these peering > > > sessions and was told by PSI that even though we have an executed peering > > > agreement with you, "our routers at the MAE's are overloaded and we are not > > > currently turning up any new peers." > > > > > > > > > K > > > > > > -- > > > | Kyle C. Bacon > > > | VP Operations > > > | [email protected] > > > | http://www.fibernet.net > > > > > > connecting your world... > > > > > > On Jun 16, 10:11am, Alex Rubenstein wrote: > > > > Subject: Any from PSI on this list? > > > > > > > > I can't seem to reach anyone at PSI who knows what I am talking about, so > > > > I thought I would try here. > > > > > > > > Lately, our connectivity to PSI has gotten worse; to the point where > > > > customers complaing about getting to sites from PSI. > > > > > > > > The thing is, PSI has a 'MEGA-PoP' about 14 feet away from me at 33 > > > > Whitehall Street, in NYC. > > > > > > > > I know PSI peers there with a few folks; are they adding? How do you > > > > become considered for peering with PSI? > > > > > > > > Thanks for your time. > > > > > > > >-- End of excerpt from Alex Rubenstein > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > | Kyle C. Bacon > > > | VP Operations > > > | [email protected] > > > | http://www.fibernet.net > > > > > > connecting your world... > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Wayne Bouchard GlobalCenter > w[email protected] > Primenet Network Engineering Internet Solutions for > (602) 416-6422 800-373-2499 x6422 Growing Businesses > FAX: (602) 416-9422 > http://www.primenet.com http://www.globalcenter.net > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >