[c-nsp] Customer Facing Interfaces: Policing vs. Shaping

[Vincent De Keyzer]

Hello,

If I want to deliver 1 Mbps to a customer who has an E1, I usually use
"traffic-shape rate" because "rate-limit output" causes packet losses and
gives terrible performance - I would be at 600kbps or something on a FTP
transfer (1000 kbps during one 5-second interval, and 400 kbps during the
next - I can send you STG screenshots if you want). Now, the impact on
several streams rather than one may be less terrible.

But shaping the incoming traffic is not possible afaik - I usually shape
output traffic on some other interface that matches the upstream traffic of
the customer (with ACLs and "traffic-shape group") if necessary.

HTH

V

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net 
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Marko 
> Milivojevic
> Sent: mardi 19 octobre 2004 12:00
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [c-nsp] Customer Facing Interfaces: Policing vs. Shaping
> 
> 
>     Hello everyone, I was having brief discussion/argument 
> with one of the members of this list this morning (hello 
> Boyan :-)) regarding general QoS and queing. By the end of 
> the argument we reached disagreement about service provider's 
> customer facing interfaces. Should they be policed, shaped, 
> "left as they are"? What are most of you guys doing?
> 
> 
> Marko.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net 
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/