#1, we are not a customer of PSI, #2, we are near the NYC pop, which I
would be sure is noe overloaded when it comes to peering (I would assume).
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.
> 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
> currently turning up any new peers."
> > Kyle C. Bacon
> > VP Operations
> > email@example.com
> > http://www.fibernet.net
> connecting your world...
> > Subject: Any from PSI on this list?
> > I can't seem to reach anyone at PSI who knows what I am talking