[144118] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Silently dropping QoS marked packets on the greater Internet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu)
Fri Sep 2 12:03:12 2011
To: Saku Ytti <saku@ytti.fi>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 02 Sep 2011 17:48:17 +0300."
<20110902144817.GA23688@pob.ytti.fi>
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:02:03 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1314979323_2710P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, 02 Sep 2011 17:48:17 +0300, Saku Ytti said:
> Seems in this instance someone has deployed QoS and is trusting markings from
> Internet, which is just broken, as they cannot anymore guarantee that customer
> video/voice etc works during congestion, so the QoS product is broken.
Except you can't actually *guarantee* that QoS works every packet, every time,
during congestion even within the same network. Remember - QoS is just a
marking to shoot the other guy first. If a link ends up overcommitted with QoS
traffic, you're still screwed. And there's a second-order effect as well - if
your net is running sufficiently close to the capacity edge that QoS actually
matters, there's probably other engineering deficiencies that are just waiting
to screw you up.
Is the story I've heard about people managing to saturate a link with QoS'ed
traffic, and then having the link drop because network management traffic was
basically DoS'ed, apocryphal, or have people shot themselves in the foot that
way?
--==_Exmh_1314979323_2710P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001
iD8DBQFOYP37cC3lWbTT17ARAmUyAJ9ht5d/PFPOt0mRq2Gk2Os5PvDUTgCeORx3
9VgOyK1H5kU3vtw1tT00ga4=
=uUsd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1314979323_2710P--
