|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: PSINet/Cogent Latency
On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Phil Rosenthal wrote: : :With the price of transit where it is today: :#1 Transit is often cheaper than peering (if you factor in port costs on :public exchanges, or link costs for private exchanges) :#2 The difference in price is likely not large enough for me to risk: :saturation, latency, etc... : :My customers pay me to provide them a premium service, and I see value :in providing that service. : :Some people have no problem selling cogent -- what can I say... You get :what you pay for... : :And no, I'm not trolling. Is having a different opinion not allowed :now? :And 40mbit over a 45mbit circuit, if it is to an uplink/peer -- well, if :he has customers who are connected at 100mbit switched uncapped (likely) :-- then many customers (possibly even some DSL customers...) can flood :off his peer links with only a 5mbit stream. Much better. Your prior posts lacked context and continuity. I've always advocated overprovisioning myself, vs. creative buffering, queuing, and/or "distracting" the end user. The statement "I wouldn't think of getting T1, DS3 or OC3 in the fist place", without context, easily lends itself to misinterpretation. cheers, brian : :--Phil : :-----Original Message----- :From: Brian Wallingford [mailto:[email protected]] :Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 11:13 PM :To: Phil Rosenthal :Cc: 'Alex Rubenstein'; [email protected] :Subject: RE: PSINet/Cogent Latency : : :Good for you, Phil. Chime in again when you've got something useful to :offer. : :In the meantime, you may want to review Economics 101 along with certain :queueing schemes, especially RED (no, I'm not endorsing the idea of :oversubscribing to the extreme, but then again, neither was Alex). : :Also, re-read the previous post. There's a big difference between :choice and facility. : :Did you grow up spending Summers in the Hamptons with no conception of :the value of a dollar, or are you simply trolling? : :-brian : : :On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Phil Rosenthal wrote: : :: ::Actually, I wouldn't think about getting T1, DS3 or OC3 in the first ::place ;) :Oc-12 is the minimum link I would even look at -- and my :preference is :gig-e... Even if there is only 90 megs on the :interface... :: ::--Phil :: ::-----Original Message----- ::From: Alex Rubenstein [mailto:[email protected]] ::Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 10:02 PM ::To: Phil Rosenthal ::Cc: [email protected] ::Subject: RE: PSINet/Cogent Latency :: :: :: :: ::On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Phil Rosenthal wrote: :: ::> ::> I call any upstream link 'over capacity' if either: ::> 1) There is less than 50mb/s unused :: ::That must work well for T1's and DS3's. :: :: ::> 2) The circuit is more than 50% in use :: ::I call it 'over capacity' too, but that doesn't mean all the ducks are ::in a row to get both sides to realise an upgrade is needed, and even if ::they do realise it, to actually get it done. I am sure 2238092 people :on :this list can complain of the same problem. :: ::So, what do you do? You monitor it's usage, making adjustments to make ::sure it doesn't get clobbered. You can easily run DS-3s at 35 to 40 ::mbit/sec, with little to none increase in latency from the norm. Many ::people do this as well, even up to OC12 or higher levels all the time. :: :: :: :: ::> I guess by my definition a DS3 is always 'over capacity' :: ::Which must work very well for those DS3's doing 10 to 20 mb/s. Do you ::upgrade those to OC3 or beyond? :: :: ::-- Alex Rubenstein, AR97, K2AHR, [email protected], latency, Al Reuben -- ::-- Net Access Corporation, 800-NET-ME-36, http://www.nac.net -- :: :: :: :: : : :
|