The traffic to/from the U shot up today. I'm guessing that is CDN related? The link between the CNS switch and the MICE switch shot up to ~850Mbps today. Too bad that is only a single gig connection! It is great to have the traffic on the exchange, but we should probably deal with this nearly saturated link fast. Here are a few possible solutions: 1) Add another Gig connection. We'd probably need to pay FWR for a cross-connect (CNS is paying for the first one) with this option; 2) Use one of the new Juniper switches with a 10Gig interface and connect that to a 10Gig interface on the existing MICE 10Gig switch, then move some of the 1Gig members over to those ports. This would require purchase of 10Gig optics for the Juniper and the existing 10Gig MICE switch; 3) Move some of the higher bandwidth MICE members to the 1Gig ports on the 10Gig switch. Would this increase the FWR cross-connect charges for those members if they are going from copper to fiber? 4) Encourage MICE members on the 1Gig switch to upgrade to a 10Gig connection; 5) Ask the U to not advertise some of the members on the 1Gig switch to CDNs (if that is the cause of the traffic load). This is a bummer if you are one of the networks that gets left out. I really don't like this option -- we are finally getting real traffic on the exchange and then we'd be cutting back. What does everybody think? Any other suggestions? ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
I looks like it is going to SDN and Airstream for the most part. There are two short term solutions; 1. move those to the CNS switch, I have Copper SFPs I can loan if necessary. 2. I can stop announcing those AS to the Akamai route collector. The longer term solution is to get the Juniper switches installed. On 5/18/11 16:52 CDT, Steve Howard wrote:
The traffic to/from the U shot up today. I'm guessing that is CDN related?
The link between the CNS switch and the MICE switch shot up to ~850Mbps today. Too bad that is only a single gig connection!
It is great to have the traffic on the exchange, but we should probably deal with this nearly saturated link fast. Here are a few possible solutions:
1) Add another Gig connection. We'd probably need to pay FWR for a cross-connect (CNS is paying for the first one) with this option;
2) Use one of the new Juniper switches with a 10Gig interface and connect that to a 10Gig interface on the existing MICE 10Gig switch, then move some of the 1Gig members over to those ports. This would require purchase of 10Gig optics for the Juniper and the existing 10Gig MICE switch;
3) Move some of the higher bandwidth MICE members to the 1Gig ports on the 10Gig switch. Would this increase the FWR cross-connect charges for those members if they are going from copper to fiber?
4) Encourage MICE members on the 1Gig switch to upgrade to a 10Gig connection;
5) Ask the U to not advertise some of the members on the 1Gig switch to CDNs (if that is the cause of the traffic load). This is a bummer if you are one of the networks that gets left out. I really don't like this option -- we are finally getting real traffic on the exchange and then we'd be cutting back.
What does everybody think? Any other suggestions?
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
-- =============================================== David Farmer Email:farmer@umn.edu Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 =============================================== ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
Looking at the graphs, it is apparent that most of the traffic is going to one MICE member. I would believe that they would be inclined to want to move to a 10 gig link since it is really benefiting them, and since it is the same fiber cross connect, the only real cost would be the 10G optics. The second thing that is much more long term is I believe that the link between the switches should be 10Gig. This would not allow a single 1Gig member to do so much unexpected traffic that effects the exchange as a whole, and we would be able to watch trends, and adjust as needed before the situation became urgent. Jeremy -----Original Message----- From: MICE Discuss [mailto:MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET] On Behalf Of Steve Howard Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 4:52 PM To: MICE-DISCUSS@LISTS.IPHOUSE.NET Subject: [MICE-DISCUSS] Traffic between 10Gig & 1Gig Switches The traffic to/from the U shot up today. I'm guessing that is CDN related? The link between the CNS switch and the MICE switch shot up to ~850Mbps today. Too bad that is only a single gig connection! It is great to have the traffic on the exchange, but we should probably deal with this nearly saturated link fast. Here are a few possible solutions: 1) Add another Gig connection. We'd probably need to pay FWR for a cross-connect (CNS is paying for the first one) with this option; 2) Use one of the new Juniper switches with a 10Gig interface and connect that to a 10Gig interface on the existing MICE 10Gig switch, then move some of the 1Gig members over to those ports. This would require purchase of 10Gig optics for the Juniper and the existing 10Gig MICE switch; 3) Move some of the higher bandwidth MICE members to the 1Gig ports on the 10Gig switch. Would this increase the FWR cross-connect charges for those members if they are going from copper to fiber? 4) Encourage MICE members on the 1Gig switch to upgrade to a 10Gig connection; 5) Ask the U to not advertise some of the members on the 1Gig switch to CDNs (if that is the cause of the traffic load). This is a bummer if you are one of the networks that gets left out. I really don't like this option -- we are finally getting real traffic on the exchange and then we'd be cutting back. What does everybody think? Any other suggestions? ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
On 5/18/11 4:52 PM, "Steve Howard" <showard@PAULBUNYAN.NET> wrote:
The traffic to/from the U shot up today. I'm guessing that is CDN related?
The link between the CNS switch and the MICE switch shot up to ~850Mbps today. Too bad that is only a single gig connection!
Changing later when the 2 new switches go into place.
It is great to have the traffic on the exchange, but we should probably deal with this nearly saturated link fast. Here are a few possible solutions:
1) Add another Gig connection. We'd probably need to pay FWR for a cross-connect (CNS is paying for the first one) with this option;
2) Use one of the new Juniper switches with a 10Gig interface and connect that to a 10Gig interface on the existing MICE 10Gig switch, then move some of the 1Gig members over to those ports. This would require purchase of 10Gig optics for the Juniper and the existing 10Gig MICE switch;
This will probably be happening.
4) Encourage MICE members on the 1Gig switch to upgrade to a 10Gig connection;
Don't see how that helps.
5) Ask the U to not advertise some of the members on the 1Gig switch to CDNs (if that is the cause of the traffic load). This is a bummer if you are one of the networks that gets left out. I really don't like this option -- we are finally getting real traffic on the exchange and then we'd be cutting back.
That'd be silly. -- Mike Horwath ipHouse - Welcome home! drechsau@iphouse.net The universe is an island, surrounded by whatever it is that surrounds universes. - Berkeley Fortune ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
Guys
2) Use one of the new Juniper switches with a 10Gig interface and connect that to a 10Gig interface on the existing MICE 10Gig switch, then move some of the 1Gig members over to those ports. This would require purchase of 10Gig optics for the Juniper and the existing 10Gig MICE switch;
This will probably be happening.
Was I mistaken is reading the original donation note about the Juniper switches that Juniper included the 10GE uplink module or did it also include optics? If it did not include one or both of those I would be willing to donate some money towards the uplink module & optics needed on both ends. -- Nevin Lyne -- Founder / Director of Technology -- EngineHosting.com -- 888-576-HOST or 612-234-8964 ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
Was I mistaken is reading the original donation note about the Juniper switches that Juniper included the 10GE uplink module or did it also include optics?
There are a couple of 10G SFP+ modules included along with the Juniper switch. I don't think there were any 1 G optics. jay ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
What type? LX? On 05/18/2011 05:27 PM, Jay Hanke wrote:
Was I mistaken is reading the original donation note about the Juniper switches that Juniper included the 10GE uplink module or did it also include optics? There are a couple of 10G SFP+ modules included along with the Juniper switch. I don't think there were any 1 G optics.
jay
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Steve Howard <showard@paulbunyan.net> wrote:
What type? LX?
Should be, I didn't pull them out to verify. James can you take a quick look at those? ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
On May 18, 2011, at 2:52 PM, Steve Howard wrote:
The traffic to/from the U shot up today. I'm guessing that is CDN related?
The link between the CNS switch and the MICE switch shot up to ~850Mbps today. Too bad that is only a single gig connection!
It is great to have the traffic on the exchange, but we should probably deal with this nearly saturated link fast. Here are a few possible solutions:
1) Add another Gig connection. We'd probably need to pay FWR for a cross-connect (CNS is paying for the first one) with this option;
2) Use one of the new Juniper switches with a 10Gig interface and connect that to a 10Gig interface on the existing MICE 10Gig switch, then move some of the 1Gig members over to those ports. This would require purchase of 10Gig optics for the Juniper and the existing 10Gig MICE switch;
3) Move some of the higher bandwidth MICE members to the 1Gig ports on the 10Gig switch. Would this increase the FWR cross-connect charges for those members if they are going from copper to fiber?
4) Encourage MICE members on the 1Gig switch to upgrade to a 10Gig connection;
5) Ask the U to not advertise some of the members on the 1Gig switch to CDNs (if that is the cause of the traffic load). This is a bummer if you are one of the networks that gets left out. I really don't like this option -- we are finally getting real traffic on the exchange and then we'd be cutting back.
What does everybody think? Any other suggestions?
To the extent that my input is useful, I encourage option 2. I believe this is the more scalable longer-term solution and does not represent a significantly higher cost than any of the others will in relatively short order. Owen ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
Switches are now @ 511 in FWR Suite. I did not get a chance to check the SFP. I will be back @ 511 to do install/config around 4pm if noone else gets to it before then. On May 19, 2011 12:20 AM, "Owen DeLong" <owend@he.net> wrote:
On May 18, 2011, at 2:52 PM, Steve Howard wrote:
The traffic to/from the U shot up today. I'm guessing that is CDN related?
The link between the CNS switch and the MICE switch shot up to ~850Mbps today. Too bad that is only a single gig connection!
It is great to have the traffic on the exchange, but we should probably deal with this nearly saturated link fast. Here are a few possible solutions:
1) Add another Gig connection. We'd probably need to pay FWR for a cross-connect (CNS is paying for the first one) with this option;
2) Use one of the new Juniper switches with a 10Gig interface and connect that to a 10Gig interface on the existing MICE 10Gig switch, then move some of the 1Gig members over to those ports. This would require purchase of 10Gig optics for the Juniper and the existing 10Gig MICE switch;
3) Move some of the higher bandwidth MICE members to the 1Gig ports on the 10Gig switch. Would this increase the FWR cross-connect charges for those members if they are going from copper to fiber?
4) Encourage MICE members on the 1Gig switch to upgrade to a 10Gig connection;
5) Ask the U to not advertise some of the members on the 1Gig switch to CDNs (if that is the cause of the traffic load). This is a bummer if you are one of the networks that gets left out. I really don't like this option -- we are finally getting real traffic on the exchange and then we'd be cutting back.
What does everybody think? Any other suggestions?
To the extent that my input is useful, I encourage option 2.
I believe this is the more scalable longer-term solution and does not represent a significantly higher cost than any of the others will in relatively short order.
Owen
########################################################################
To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MICE-DISCUSS list, click the following link: http://lists.iphouse.net/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=MICE-DISCUSS&A=1
participants (8)
-
David Farmer -
James Montz -
Jay Hanke -
Jeremy Lumby -
Mike Horwath -
Nevin Lyne -
Owen DeLong -
Steve Howard