nanog mailing list archives

Re: QoS/CoS in the real world?


From: Art Houle <houle () zeppo acns fsu edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 21:26:58 -0400 (EDT)


On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Marshall Eubanks wrote:


On Sun, 14 Jul 2002 21:13:13 -0400 (EDT)
 Art Houle <houle () zeppo acns fsu edu> wrote:


We are using QOS to preferentially drop packets that represent
file-sharing (kazaa, gnutella, etc).  This saves us 40Mbps of traffic
across our multiple congested WAN links.  The trick is to mark packets
meaningfully.  Also, the WFQ introduces some additional latency at our
edge.

Is this different from port filtering as is commonly done with, e.g.,
gnutella ?

Or, to put it another way, how are the packets marked ? And why not just
drop them then and there, instead of later ?

If we are not using our WAN connections to capacity, then p2p traffic can
expand and fill the pipe, but if business packets are filling the pipes,
then the p2p stuff is throttled back. This makes 100% use of an expensive
resource.


Regards
Marshall Eubanks


On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:


Well, end of the week and the responses dried up pretty quickly, I think
thats a
response in itself to my question!

Okay, heres a summary which was requested by a few people:

Other people too are interested in my questions, they dont implement QoS in
any
saleable manner and wonder how it can be done and whats actually required. 

A number of people think QoS was interesting for a while but that its never
either found its true use or is dead.

There are unresolved questions from a customer point of view as to what
they are
actually going to get, what difference it will make and how they can
measure
their performance and the improvements from QoS.

There is a real demand for guaranteed bandwidth, however this tends to be
in the
form of absolute guarantees rather than improvements above "normal" hence
ATM remaining a popular solution.

There is a requirement to differentiate voice traffic, however this is
necessarily done by the network anyway in order to offer the service, this
being
the case the customer doesnt pay extra or gets to know much about how all
the
fancy bits are done.


On the face of it this is all negative. Nobody has responded saying there
are
genuine requirements for services to be offered to customers. Nor has
anybody
responded with any descriptions of implementations.

I conclude either the people doing this are successful and keep their
secret
safe or the world is yet to sell largescale QoS across IP.

Steve


On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:


Hi all,
 I've been looking through the various qos/cos options available, my
particular
area was in how IP (MPLS perhaps) compares and can be a substitute for
ATM.

Well, theres lots of talk and hype out there, from simple IP queuing eg
cisco
priority queuing, rsvp, diffserv, mpls traffic engineering etc

But two things are bugging me..

1. To what extent have providers implemented QoS for their customers

2. Hype aside, to what extent do customers actually want this (and by
this I
dont just mean that they want the latest QoS because its the 'latest
thing',
there has to be a genuine reason for them to want it). And this takes me
back to
my ATM reference where there is a clear major market still out there of
ATM
users and what would it take to migrate them to an IP solution?

Also, how are people implementing bandwidth on demand (dynamic allocation
controlled by the customer) solutions to customers

Cheers

Steve









Art Houle                                   e-mail:  houle () acns fsu edu.
Academic Computing & Network Services        Voice:  850-644-2591
Florida State University               FAX:  850-644-8722



Art Houle                               e-mail:  houle () acns fsu edu.
Academic Computing & Network Services    Voice:  850-644-2591
Florida State University                   FAX:  850-644-8722


Current thread: