[155121] in North American Network Operators' Group
Rate shaping in Active E FTTx networks
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jason Lixfeld)
Thu Jul 26 15:45:58 2012
From: Jason Lixfeld <jason@lixfeld.ca>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:45:14 -0400
To: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi all,
I'm trying to gauge what operators are doing to handle per-subscriber =
Internet access PIR bandwidth in Active E FTTx networks. =20
I presume operators would want to limit the each subscriber to a certain =
PIR, but within that limit, do things like perform preferential =
treatment of interactive services like steaming video or Skype, etc., =
ahead of non-interactive services like FTP.
My impression is that a subscriber's physical access in these networks =
is exponentially larger than their allocated amount of Internet access. =
This would leave ample room on the physical access access for other =
services like Voice and IPTV that might run on separate VLANs than the =
Internet access VLAN. That said, I doubt there's really that much of a =
concern about allocating PIR on these other service VLANs.
So in terms of PIR for Internet access, is there some magic box that =
sits between the various subscriber aggregation points and the core, =
which takes care of shaping the subscriber's Internet access PIR, while =
making sure that the any preferential treatment of interactive services =
is performed.
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 treatment above and beyond that seem like quite a =
lot to ask of one box. Am I wrong?
Who might make a box like this, if it exists? And if not, what are =
folks using the achieve these results?
Thanks in advance for any insights..=
