NTAC Peering Working Group

[Jeff Bartig <>]

There should be concern about congesting both the R&E and TR/CPS
networks.  Over the last two years there have been many paths within
TR/CPS, such as capacity to public exchanges and interconnects
between TR/CPS and the AL3S, that have been at very uncomfortable
levels (70-90%).  There have been long delays in Internet2 approving
resolving these issues due to I2 and CENIC having to work out the
financial aspects of the upgrades.

I support making sure continued expansion of services are financially
viable.  What concerns me is that this same level of scrutiny isn't
being applied in other areas, such as Net+ commercial peering.

Jeff

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:55:47AM -0400, Michael H Lambert wrote:
> On 24 May 2013, at 11:25, Michael H Lambert wrote:
> 
> > Speaking pragmatically, I think I'm more concerned about congesting the 
> > TR-CPS links than removing too much headroom on the R&E links.  I won't 
> > argue that this view is *right*.
> 
> Replying to my own mail (sorry!)...
> 
> If there is a strong consensus that this view is flat-out wrong, then maybe 
> we as a community need to re-evaluate and re-justify the existence of 
> TR-CPS.  Perhaps we need to look at peering strictly on the local and 
> regional levels, even though that would mean more collective effort and the 
> loss of economy of scale.
> 
> Michael

-- 
Jeff Bartig                  |  University of Wisconsin - Madison

          |  Division of Information Technology
(608) 262-8336               |  Network Services/WAN Engineering/AS59
GTalk/AIM/Yahoo: jbartig     |  WiscNet Backbone Engineering/AS2381