For the purposes of Citylink exchanges (WIX, APE, CHIX, PNIX, DIX and any
others i'm not aware of) I'd just like to say that Matthew summed this up
perfectly. You will never get an agreement between *all* parties who
exchange traffic there. Who is to say my traffic is more important than
yours if you have no formal agreement as to what is important? It _could_
work if implemented in bilateral peering sessions over an IX exchangge but
won't if it's a many-to-many peering session.
Jonathan (cf beer)
On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Rik Wade
On 27/03/2009, at 1:38 PM, Neil Gardner wrote:
Good question, but it raises the ugly issue of who decides what traffic is high priority... Unless there are commercial arrangements in place, I'd suggest that the optimum strategy for all peers would be to mark ALL their traffic as high priority.
I'd suggest something like the following as policy: - two classes, "bulk" and "priority" - IX members are permitted to send n% of their IX connection bandwidth as "priority" (matrix configuration enforced)
This way, the IX members can't swamp the matrix with more than n% of the connectivity they pay for. Furthermore, it is up to the IX members to decide which traffic they put in to this n% and this may vary for each peer. Priority traffic between ISPs 'x' and 'y' may be VoIP, by their own agreement. Priority traffic from Domestic Content Provider 'x' and all its peers may be streaming media.
It is up to the IX and its members to decide what n% is reasonable, and scale the matrix accordingly. Other traffic classes or priorities may be added, but considering too much initially just complicates the matter. -- r
_______________________________________________ NZNOG mailing list NZNOG(a)list.waikato.ac.nz http://list.waikato.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/nznog