The board talked about this back in the day. The thought process was that remotes affect multiple members so the congestion policy should be enforced. For a participant it's only their network (and their customers). Also, a disconnect might make the overall internet worse as their transit may fill. On Tue, Aug 20, 2019, 11:57 PM AnthonyAnderberg@nuvera.net < AnthonyAnderberg@nuvera.net> wrote:
I know in the past several of us have reached out privately to folks at DCN about their port saturation, which seems to come and go.
We do not have a policy about member-port saturation, and my recollection is similar to Richard's - we didn't want to be bossy about people's peering.
Cheers, anthony
On 8/20/19, 9:05 PM, "Richard Laager" <rlaager@WIKTEL.COM> wrote:
On 8/20/19 8:48 PM, Darin Steffl wrote: > Is there any policy in place for peers that let their ports saturate at > 100% for an extended period of time? DCN looks like they could use an > upgrade to their 10G port and not sure if anyone proactively reaches out > to members when saturation occurs.
I've forwarded your message to DCN.
For remote switch ports, we have a policy of requiring upgrades before saturation.
For regular participants, I'm not sure that we have a policy.
I'm also not sure if we want a policy there, as that might be considered dictating peering policy. I'm not personally opposed, but this is something that would need some thought.
-- Richard