nanog mailing list archives
Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold
From: Kevin Graham <kgraham () industrial-marshmallow com>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 23:31:40 -0700 (PDT)
So, in summary: Your dropped packet counters are the ones to be looking at
as a measure of goodput, more than your utilization counters.
Indeed. Capacity upgrades are best gauged by drop rates; bit-rates without this context are largely useless. When you're only aware of the RX side though, in the absence of an equivalent to BECN, what's the best way to track this? Do any of the Ethernet OAM standards expose this data? Similarly, could anyone share experiences with transit link upgrades to accommodate bursts? In the past, any requests to transit providers have been answered w/ the need for significant increases to 95%ile commits. While this makes sense from a sales perspective, there's a strong (but insufficient) engineering argument against it.
Current thread:
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Paul Jakma (Sep 01)
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Aaron J. Grier (Sep 01)
- RE: Link capacity upgrade threshold Holmes,David A (Sep 01)
- RE: Link capacity upgrade threshold Deepak Jain (Sep 01)
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Jack Bates (Sep 01)
- RE: Link capacity upgrade threshold Holmes,David A (Sep 01)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Kevin Graham (Sep 01)
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 01)
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Jack Bates (Sep 02)
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Richard A Steenbergen (Sep 02)
- RE: Link capacity upgrade threshold Frank Bulk (Sep 07)
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 01)
- Re: Link capacity upgrade threshold Aaron J. Grier (Sep 01)