The MPLS-OPS Archive

[Eric Osborne <eosborne@cisco.com>]

> > The point I was trying to make is that you shouldn't go re-sizing TE
> > tunnels based on microbursts, but just to size the tunnel reasonably
> > (95th percentile or whatever you like) and leave it at that, using
> > diffserv mechanisms to sort out any congestion wherever it might
> > happen.
> 
> hmmmm...... large ftp file downloads?
> 

if it's a user moving a single file, this is nowhere near enough to
warrant changing tunnel size most of the time.  If it's something like
a wildly popular web site, either wait until regularly scheduled
tunnel maintenance to places tunnels differently, or deal with it on a
one-off basis.  Everyone's operational policy is different.

> > It often is, it depends what you've sold.  If you sold a 1.5Mbit/sec
> > SLA over a T1 access circuit, you don't need to rate-limit anything
> > since it's inherently done by the T1 network.  But this is largely
> > orthogonal to TE.
> 
> then lets do away with routers and stick to SDH multiplexers and use GMPLS
> on them ;-) ?

that's a possibility, sure.

> 
> unfortunately we still may have 2Mb last mile links (it could be lets say
> 113kbps subscribed over a wire which supports 2Mb is what i mean)
> 

that's why I said "it often is, it depends on what you've sold".

> there maybe cases where the implementation says 1Mb till here and .5 Mb till
> there...what about that? you still need to rate limit at the edge, dont you?
> 
> why not "cap" ...why let the last mile "wire" control that bit?


This is a good idea, that's why I said "it often is, it depends on
what you've sold".  Just that you don't *always* need to do it on the
router.


eric

-------
The MPLS-OPS Mailing List
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:  http://www.mplsrc.com/mplsops.shtml
Archive: http://www.mplsrc.com/mpls-ops_archive.shtml