nanog mailing list archives
Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX
From: Nick Hilliard <nick () foobar org>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 16:04:49 +0100
On 17/09/2013 14:43, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
And yes, DE-CIX is more than well aware everyone thinks this is .. uh .. let's just call it "silly" for now, although most would use far more disparaging words. Which is probably why no serious IXP does it.
It's not silly - it's just not what everyone else does, so it's not possible to directly compare stats with other ixps. I'm all in favour of using short (but technically sensible) sampling intervals for internal monitoring, but there are good reasons to use 300s / ingress sum for prettypics intended for public consumption. Nick
Current thread:
- common method to count traffic volume on IX Martin T (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Mikael Abrahamsson (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Nick Hilliard (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Patrick W. Gilmore (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Nick Hilliard (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Martin T (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Patrick W. Gilmore (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Tom Taylor (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Michael Hallgren (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Michael Hallgren (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Leo Bicknell (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Peter Kristolaitis (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Niels Bakker (Sep 17)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Leo Bicknell (Sep 18)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Niels Bakker (Sep 18)
- Re: common method to count traffic volume on IX Patrick W. Gilmore (Sep 17)