|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RATE-Limiting and
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. -=Vandy=- -----Original Message----- From: Jack Bates [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 4:43 AM To: Andy Dills Cc: Vandy Hamidi; prue; [email protected] Subject: Re: Newbie network upgrade question, apologies in advance to NANOG Andy Dills wrote: > > 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. > I'd say that a more significant issue is customer throughput. The nice aspect of per conn is that it not only tends to keep a decent load balance, it also limits bandwidth hogs from saturating all circuits. This of course depends on your desired result. An example in my case is my helpdesk. They are off two t1's with dsl and dialup customers. I'd prefer them not to tank both t1's when transfering files to and from the core servers. -Jack |