Re: QoS for Office365

[Tom Beecher <beecher () beecher cc>]

> At a previous employer (AOL, doing VoIP for customer service / call
> centers, ~2004) we had a number of contractual agreements with
> multiple providers to honor our QoS markings -- as far as I could tell
> (marking test traffic under congestion events) only one of about seven
> did anything at all with the marking, and that wasn't enough to make
> any difference... I briefly toyed with the idea of asking for some
> money back / trying to enforce the terms of the agreements, but
> figured that there wasn't much point - expecting QoS to work in
> someone else's network based upon your markings seems like a fool's
> errand.

Generally speaking, I agree that making QoS features work consistently on
an external network you do not control is a fool's errand.

But if that language was inserted into the contracts, and you can
demonstrably prove it's not being done, enforcing contract terms should
always be done. Depending on the strength of the remedy, could have been a
lot of free service, enough financial incentive for them to MAKE it work
correctly, or leverage to open renegotiations for more favorable terms for
you.

You know that in reverse they would have done the same to you. :)

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 6:38 PM Warren Kumari <warren () kumari net> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 5:50 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu> wrote:
> > On 8/Jul/19 21:03, Robert Webb wrote:
> > > I took the OP's request as for doing QoS at the edge of their network
> > > and not necessarily the entire path.
> >
> > Indeed, but even then, you could be handing off the traffic to a
> > downstream customer, and can't guarantee what they do to those ToS
> fields.
>
> I disagree -- you *can* guarantee what someone else will do with your
> ToS fields....... they will A: ignore them and / or B: scribble all
> over them.
>
> At a previous employer (AOL, doing VoIP for customer service / call
> centers, ~2004) we had a number of contractual agreements with
> multiple providers to honor our QoS markings -- as far as I could tell
> (marking test traffic under congestion events) only one of about seven
> did anything at all with the marking, and that wasn't enough to make
> any difference... I briefly toyed with the idea of asking for some
> money back / trying to enforce the terms of the agreements, but
> figured that there wasn't much point - expecting QoS to work in
> someone else's network based upon your markings seems like a fool's
> errand.
>
> W
>
> > > As another person stated, the real answer is to add more bandwidth if
> > > you are having to QoS to Office365 because it is affecting other
> > > internet based services.
> >
> > Yes and no.
> >
> > More bandwidth never hurt anyone, but packet loss in the remote network
> > toward the cloud will hurt you.
> >
> > Mark.
>
>
>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> idea in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> of pants.
>    ---maf