North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: The Qos PipeDream [Was: RE: Two Tiered Internet]

  • From: Mikael Abrahamsson
  • Date: Fri Dec 16 03:14:21 2005

On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:

ah-ha! and here I thought they wanted buzzword compliance :) From what sales/customers say it seems like they have a perception that 'qos will let me use MORE of my too-small pipe' (or not spend as fast on more pipe) more than anything else.
When you're running voip over a T1/E1, you really want to LLQ the VOIP packets because VOIP doesn't like delay (not so much a problem) nor jitter (big problem), nor packetloss (not so much a problem if it's less than a 0.1 percent or so).

So combining voip and data traffic on a link that sometimes (more often now when windows machine have a decent TCP window) go full, even just in a fraction of a second, means you either go QoS or do what Skype does, crank up the jitter buffer when there is high-jitter, which means latency for the call goes up.

So prioritizing packets in the access and core is good, for access because it's usually low-bandwidth and going to higher bw to remove congestion might mean factor 10 higher bw and a serious cost, in the core it's good to handle multiple faults, if the things that never should happen, you're not dropping your customers VOIP packets when the pipe is full that 0.1% of the time.

But, if you take the above model and start to always run your pipes full and use core packet prioritization as an everyday thing to support your lack of core bw, then you're in much bigger doo-doo.

Mikael Abrahamsson email: [email protected]