North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

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.

matt sommer

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Ritter <[email protected]>
To: Robert Bowman <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected]
<[email protected]>
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
luck.  We
>>> >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
would suspect
>it is closer to 10% than 30%.
>...Still not speaking for the company...