|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: PSINet/Cogent Latency
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:34:44PM -0400, Phil Rosenthal wrote: > > My point exactly -- I guess some people disagree... > Probably with any sort of queuing there will only be minimal packet loss > at 40mbit, but at any point one more stream can push it up to 43mbit, > and then queuing might no longer be enough... (and even if it is, can we > say lag?) Efficient packet loss is still packet loss. Just because you manage to make the link "look good" by slowing down TCP before your queueing latency starts going up doesn't make your network any less ghetto. IMHO the biggest problem in peering is getting the other side to actively upgrade links to prevent congestion. If you're not in a position where you can dictate terms to your peer, move traffic off it and let economics take care of the rest. Leaving a congested peer up for your own benefit at the expense of your customers is one of the surest ways to lose customers to someone who doesn't. I'd rather have a noncongested gige public peer than a ds3 private peer any day. -- Richard A Steenbergen <[email protected]> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
|