I've heard this from various networks as well. While I find it annoying, it does serve usefull purposes. More peering sessions mean higher CPU load. higher CPU load can mean more instability within the router. When the router crashes or otherwise reboots, it takes it longer to resynchronize which means longer delays in convergance and poorer overall service. Limiting the number of peering sessions on really busy routers is a benefit, not a problem. The only thing that could be asked of them would be that they investigate installing a second router to offload some of the peering sessions so they don't have such a backlog of requests and maybe provide load balancing. if they are accepting applications, they need to provide facilities for those requests to be implemented. However, I still second the comment below..

Please commend PSI for not making the situation at the MAEs worse, don't criticize them. By connecting any more peers at ME/MW, it will simply add to the packetloss levels for all of us.

Rob

...

Alex,

We executed peering agreements with PSI in May (1997) for peering at MAE-EAST and MAE-WEST (signed, mailed, etc...)

One of our engineers contacted them last week to turn up these peering sessions and was told by PSI that even though we have an executed peering agreement with you, "our routers at the MAE's are overloaded and we are not currently turning up any new peers."

K

-- | Kyle C. Bacon | VP Operations | kbacon@fibernet.net | http://www.fibernet.net

connecting your world...

On Jun 16, 10:11am, Alex Rubenstein wrote:

...

Subject: Any from PSI on this list?

I can't seem to reach anyone at PSI who knows what I am talking about, so I thought I would try here.

Lately, our connectivity to PSI has gotten worse; to the point where customers complaing about getting to sites from PSI.

The thing is, PSI has a 'MEGA-PoP' about 14 feet away from me at 33 Whitehall Street, in NYC.

I know PSI peers there with a few folks; are they adding? How do you become considered for peering with PSI?

Thanks for your time.

-- End of excerpt from Alex Rubenstein

-- | Kyle C. Bacon | VP Operations | kbacon@fibernet.net | http://www.fibernet.net

connecting your world...

-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Bouchard GlobalCenter web@primenet.com Primenet Network Engineering Internet Solutions for (602) 416-6422 800-373-2499 x6422 Growing Businesses FAX: (602) 416-9422 http://www.primenet.com http://www.globalcenter.net ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure this would be a great idea if you could get them to buy off on the idea that peering is worth a second or third router (~80k router + ~5k port/month). My question is "What about the RA?". :) The whole idea was to remove the load issues, flap and dampening problems, etc from the routers and move it to a CPU only box. Granted there are other things to look at, which we don't need to get into with this thread but at least it would be a temp solution. IMHO. BTW Whoever sent that mail about BBN peering. They just added two more routers to relax the CPU issues at MAE_EAST. You may want to email again. Todd R. Stroup Fiber Network Solutions, Inc. On Mon, 16 Jun 1997, Wayne Bouchard wrote:

I've heard this from various networks as well. While I find it annoying, it does serve usefull purposes. More peering sessions mean higher CPU load. higher CPU load can mean more instability within the router. When the router crashes or otherwise reboots, it takes it longer to resynchronize which means longer delays in convergance and poorer overall service. Limiting the number of peering sessions on really busy routers is a benefit, not a problem. The only thing that could be asked of them would be that they investigate installing a second router to offload some of the peering sessions so they don't have such a backlog of requests and maybe provide load balancing. if they are accepting applications, they need to provide facilities for those requests to be implemented.

However, I still second the comment below..

...

Please commend PSI for not making the situation at the MAEs worse, don't criticize them. By connecting any more peers at ME/MW, it will simply add to the packetloss levels for all of us.

Rob

...

Alex,

We executed peering agreements with PSI in May (1997) for peering at MAE-EAST and MAE-WEST (signed, mailed, etc...)

One of our engineers contacted them last week to turn up these peering sessions and was told by PSI that even though we have an executed peering agreement with you, "our routers at the MAE's are overloaded and we are not currently turning up any new peers."

K

-- | Kyle C. Bacon | VP Operations | kbacon@fibernet.net | http://www.fibernet.net

connecting your world...

On Jun 16, 10:11am, Alex Rubenstein wrote:

...

Subject: Any from PSI on this list?

I can't seem to reach anyone at PSI who knows what I am talking about, so I thought I would try here.

Lately, our connectivity to PSI has gotten worse; to the point where customers complaing about getting to sites from PSI.

The thing is, PSI has a 'MEGA-PoP' about 14 feet away from me at 33 Whitehall Street, in NYC.

I know PSI peers there with a few folks; are they adding? How do you become considered for peering with PSI?

Thanks for your time.

-- End of excerpt from Alex Rubenstein

-- | Kyle C. Bacon | VP Operations | kbacon@fibernet.net | http://www.fibernet.net

connecting your world...

--

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Bouchard GlobalCenter web@primenet.com Primenet Network Engineering Internet Solutions for (602) 416-6422 800-373-2499 x6422 Growing Businesses FAX: (602) 416-9422 http://www.primenet.com http://www.globalcenter.net ----------------------------------------------------------------------