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

---

To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link:
http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1