Re: Rate shaping in Active E FTTx networks

[Phil <bedard.phil () gmail com>]

On the downstream end the limiting is usually done on the subscriber aggregation equipment.  Router vendors sell 
linecards with large amounts of queue capability for this reason.  This is where you would introduce some kind of QoS 
to deal with video or voice as well.   Upstream could be done the same way if they have true direct connections to the 
gear or be done on a CPE. 

As far as differentiating traffic within an Internet pipe that is a slippery legal slope.  Others have mentioned the 
bigger players like Procera and Sandvine.  

Phil

On Jul 26, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Jason Lixfeld <jason () lixfeld ca> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I'm trying to gauge what operators are doing to handle per-subscriber Internet access PIR bandwidth in Active E FTTx 
> networks.  
>
> I presume operators would want to limit the each subscriber to a certain PIR, but within that limit, do things like 
> perform preferential treatment of interactive services like steaming video or Skype, etc., ahead of non-interactive 
> services like FTP.
>
> My impression is that a subscriber's physical access in these networks is exponentially larger than their allocated 
> amount of Internet access.  This would leave ample room on the physical access access for other services like Voice 
> and IPTV that might run on separate VLANs than the Internet access VLAN. That said, I doubt there's really that much 
> of a concern about allocating PIR on these other service VLANs.
>
> So in terms of PIR for Internet access, is there some magic box that sits between the various subscriber aggregation 
> points and the core, which takes care of shaping the subscriber's Internet access PIR, while making sure that the any 
> preferential treatment of interactive services is performed.
>
> Is that a lot to ask for one box?  The ridiculously deep buffers required in order to shape to PIR vs. police to it 
> (because policing to a PIR is just plain ugly) and the requirements to perform any sort of preferential packet 
> treatment above and beyond that seem like quite a lot to ask of one box.  Am I wrong?
>
> Who might make a box like this, if it exists?  And if not, what are folks using the achieve these results?
>
> Thanks in advance for any insights..