Mailing List Archive

> If this happens, will MFS attempt to police the meet point
> and force anyone who is currently providing "transit" to purchase
> and user this "product"?

I don't see how they'd differentiate the traffic..

> Will it change/worsen the performance of the heavier traffic
> sites by "stealing" customers from the larger traffic sources, and
> then dumping traffic upon those already overloaded circuits making
> the HoLB problem all the worse?

If this happens I'd suggest everyone at the NAPs deploy some type of MAC-layer
filtering. It's far to easy (and seemingly common) for providers to forget to
set "next-hop-self" on NAP routes .. so what I foresee is providers selling
transit via the exchanges ...and then never seeing the traffic bound to
*their* unsuspecting peers.

> Does anyone really care whether or not transit is sold over
> the MFS meet points, and if so, what are the operation concerns?

I personally don't think it's a good idea, there are enough traffic related problems without "additional" transit-only connections.

Perhaps this is MFS's ploy to sell MAC-layer filtering ;-)

-danny

On Mon, 4 Aug 1997, Avi Freedman wrote:
> There are definitely operational considerations - whether it's for
> peering or for transit, MFS needs to know whether switch A/port 2 is
> sending 10mb of uni- or bi-directional traffic to switch X/port M in
> order to balance their switch loads well...

MFS is already doing some amount of interprovider flow analysis. This
information is used to decide on when and where to add trunks between the
Gigaswitches as well as the impact of moving high load users between
switches.

Mike.

+------------------- H U R R I C A N E - E L E C T R I C -------------------+
| Mike Leber Direct Internet Connections Voice 408 282 1540 |
| Hurricane Electric Web Hosting & Co-location Fax 408 971 3340 |
| mleber@he.net http://www.he.net |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+