Re: Traffic Shapping

[Jeremy Porter <jerry () freeside fc net>]

Traffic shaping in the core of a network won't scale. "enterprise" or private
networks haven't got much life left in them.  (This is Nanog right?)
We use 2500 series ciscos for traffic shaping at T-1 and below, but that
isn't terribly related to nanog either.
One just has to look at exchange point data to see what
traffic volumes are like, I don't know of anything that
can switch VC near 2gbps/sec particuarlly with the flow life times
of Internet traffic.
It's much cheaper to shape/filter at the borders and overengineer the
core.  It also increases usefull lifetime of hardware.  (No forklift
upgrades).

In message <19980425050329.10670.qmail () hotmail com>, "Ehab Hadi" writes:
> I think traffic shaping is very importent. I agree to the point
> that the new traffic shaping approches tends to shape on near the
> edges, but that would not prevent applying such approches in the
> core especially if its an interprise net.
> The shapping implemintation preferred to be implemented in switch
> because the hardware is simply fast and efficient.
> Jeremy,
> Would you please specify what kind of Cisco platform that you are 
> using?
>
> Ehab Hadi
> Northern Telecom.
> Interprise Networking
> Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4H7
> Canada
>
>
> > From owner-nanog () merit edu Fri Apr 24 09:39:40 1998
> > Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
> >      by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA26391;
> >      Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:27:05 -0400 (EDT)
> > Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:25:12 
> -0400
> > Received: (from majordom@localhost)
> >      by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) id MAA26259
> >      for nanog-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:25:11 -0400 (EDT)
> > Received: from freeside.fc.net (freeside.fc.net [207.170.70.2])
> >      by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA26217
> >      for <nanog () merit edu>; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:24:37 -0400 (EDT)
> > Received: from freeside.fc.net (localhost.fc.net [127.0.0.1])
> >      by freeside.fc.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA14282;
> >      Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:24:30 -0500 (CDT)
> > Message-Id: <199804241624.LAA14282 () freeside fc net>
> > To: "Natambu Obleton" <no () frontier net>
> > cc: nanog () merit edu
> > Subject: Re: Traffic Shapping
> > In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:51:16 MDT."
> >             <072601bd6f12$b4f15050$3b8d2dc7 () hermosa frontier net>
> > Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:24:29 -0500
> > From: Jeremy Porter <jerry () freeside fc net>
> > Sender: owner-nanog () merit edu
> >
> >
> > Sure we do it all the time.  There are CPU limitations on the
> > amount of total traffic that can be pushed through a router that
> > is traffic shaping.  I'm assuming because all the shaped traffic is
> > process switched.  Also you will probably want to dedicate a router
> > to it.
> >
> > Typically these are only useful near the customer connection, as
> > you can really only shape outbound packets.  (unless you
> > traffic shape at your boarders, and have a "large" network, you've
> > already paid for the traffic by the time you discard it.)
> >
> > In message <072601bd6f12$b4f15050$3b8d2dc7 () hermosa frontier net>, 
> "Natambu Oble
> > ton" writes:
> > > Has anyone here successfully implement the traffic shaping option on a 
> Cisco
> > > router?
> > > --
> > > Natambu Obleton - Network Administrator - Frontier Internet Inc.
> > > 970 385 4177 - fax: 970 385 6745 - http://www.frontier.net
> > > 777 Main St. - Suite #201 - Durango - Colorado - 81301 - USA
> >
> > ---
> > Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc.      jerry () fc net
> > PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708  | 512-458-9810
> > http://www.fc.net
>
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

---
Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc.      jerry () fc net
PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708  | 512-458-9810
http://www.fc.net