Peter Kaminski wrote:
>
> Matthew Kaufman writes about the Ames FDDI ring saturation:
>
> >What I don't understand is why that has _stayed_ saturated... it seems
> >to me that some of the big players would have rerouted their traffic
> >by now to avoid subjecting it to this, which would also have the side
> >effect of causing the problem to, at least for the short term, go
> >away.
>
> ...or why MFS hasn't installed a Gigaswitch there, or whatever. We're
> seeing 20% - 30% packet loss through AGIS to MCI and Sprintlink during
> the day, and it's not fun.
Speaking of fddi rings, saturation, and packet loss.. has anyone taken
a look at the peering between mcinet and cicnet at the chicago nap?
i get about the same (20-30%) packet loss during the day.
and no, it's not fun at all.
--
panic@cyborganic.com
>
> Matthew Kaufman writes about the Ames FDDI ring saturation:
>
> >What I don't understand is why that has _stayed_ saturated... it seems
> >to me that some of the big players would have rerouted their traffic
> >by now to avoid subjecting it to this, which would also have the side
> >effect of causing the problem to, at least for the short term, go
> >away.
>
> ...or why MFS hasn't installed a Gigaswitch there, or whatever. We're
> seeing 20% - 30% packet loss through AGIS to MCI and Sprintlink during
> the day, and it's not fun.
Speaking of fddi rings, saturation, and packet loss.. has anyone taken
a look at the peering between mcinet and cicnet at the chicago nap?
i get about the same (20-30%) packet loss during the day.
and no, it's not fun at all.
--
panic@cyborganic.com