[59510] in North American Network Operators' Group
RATE-Limiting and
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vandy Hamidi)
Thu Jul 3 11:48:49 2003
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:48:18 -0700
From: "Vandy Hamidi" <vandy.hamidi@markettools.com>
To: "Jack Bates" <jbates@brightok.net>, "Andy Dills" <andy@xecu.net>
Cc: "prue" <prue@usc.edu>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Excellent point. It does depend on the traffic type.
Though I don't like to complicated my configs, you can always use CAR =
(cisco rate limiting) through an ACL to protect against the file =
transfer from the core servers issue you referred to below. It can make =
sure a high bandwidth xfer won't suck up all your available B/W.
Does anyone out there know how to limit B/W based on Flow or individual =
sessions? Or even just source (where source is random). For example, a =
CAR where each IP source gets no more than X% of B/W (still allowing =
bursts if bandwidth is available). I think some QOS tagging and queuing =
would have to be involved.
-=3DVandy=3D-
-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Bates [mailto:jbates@brightok.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 4:43 AM
To: Andy Dills
Cc: Vandy Hamidi; prue; nanog@merit.edu
Subject: Re: Newbie network upgrade question, apologies in advance to
NANOG
Andy Dills wrote:
>=20
> Yes, but the original poster was dealing with DS3s connected to =
different
> NAPs, which is why the packet out-of-order issue can be significant.
>=20
I'd say that a more significant issue is customer throughput. The nice=20
aspect of per conn is that it not only tends to keep a decent load=20
balance, it also limits bandwidth hogs from saturating all circuits.=20
This of course depends on your desired result. An example in my case is=20
my helpdesk. They are off two t1's with dsl and dialup customers. I'd=20
prefer them not to tank both t1's when transfering files to and from the =
core servers.
-Jack
