On Thursday, July 26, 2012 09:45:14 PM Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> 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 t
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
Many CPE platforms have the rate limit built in. Some (eg: Zhone) do this in
1mbps increments. Ideally there would be some greater level of granularity but
it seems to work. You can obviously police on the other end as well if
required.
Jared Mauch
On Jul 26, 2012, at 3:45 PM, Jason Lixfeld
On 7/26/2012 11:21 PM, Erik Muller wrote:
> I've seen a few deployments using Packeteer's (now BlueCoat)
> PacketShaper for this purpose; the only downside I've heard with that
> platform is cost. Sandvine and Fortinet are a couple other options
> that have different approaches, but have a lot of
Juniper dynamic application awareness does a decent job and so does the cisco
counterpart
saves buying more hw
From: Erik Muller [er...@buh.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:21 PM
To: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Rate shaping in Active E FTTx networks
On 7/26/12 12:45 , Jason Lixfeld 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
6 matches
Mail list logo
