Juniper dynamic application awareness does a decent job and so does the cisco counterpart
saves buying more hw ________________________________________ From: Erik Muller [er...@buh.org] Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:21 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Rate shaping in Active E FTTx networks On 7/26/12 12:45 , Jason Lixfeld wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm trying to gauge what operators are doing to handle per-subscriber > Internet access PIR bandwidth in Active E FTTx networks. > > 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.. I've seen a few deployments using Packeteer's (now BlueCoat) PacketShaper for this purpose; the only downside I've heard with that platform is cost. Sandvine and Fortinet are a couple other options that have different approaches, but have a lot of this functionality rolled in alongside their broader security services. -e
