On 04/03/2011 12:50 PM, Stefan Fouant wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 10:24 PM
But it also only affects priority queue traffic. I realize I'm making
a value judgment, but many customers under DDoS would find things
va
> -Original Message-
> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 10:24 PM
>
> But it also only affects priority queue traffic. I realize I'm making
> a value judgment, but many customers under DDoS would find things
> vastly improved if their video conf
> -Original Message-
> From: Leo Bicknell [mailto:bickn...@ufp.org]
> Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 5:56 PM
>
> In an IP network, the bandwidth constraints are almost always across an
> administrative boundary. This means in the majority of the case across
> transit circuits, not peering
In a message written on Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 07:00:52PM -0400, Jeff Wheeler
wrote:
> I don't agree with this. IMO all DDoS traffic would suddenly be
> marked into the highest priority forwarding class that doesn't have an
> absurdly low policer for the DDoS source's access port, and as a
> result
On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 5:56 PM, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> The PSTN "features" fixed, known bandwidth. QoS isn't really the
> right term. When I nail up a BRI, I know I have 128kb of bandwidth,
> never more, never less. There is no function on that channel similar
> to IP QoS.
The PSTN also has exa
In a message written on Sat, Apr 02, 2011 at 04:00:30PM -0400, Francois Menard
wrote:
> One of the postulates that I intend to defend, is that in the
> PSTN today, in addition to interconnecting for the purpose of
> exchanging voice calls, it is possible to LOCALLY (at the Local
> Interconnection
6 matches
Mail list logo
