Traffic Shapping

Sat Apr 25 22:05:16 UTC 1998

Traffic shaping in the core of a network won't scale. "enterprise" or private
networks haven't got much life left in them.  (This is Nanog right?)
We use 2500 series ciscos for traffic shaping at T-1 and below, but that
isn't terribly related to nanog either.
One just has to look at exchange point data to see what
traffic volumes are like, I don't know of anything that
can switch VC near 2gbps/sec particuarlly with the flow life times
of Internet traffic.
It's much cheaper to shape/filter at the borders and overengineer the
core.  It also increases usefull lifetime of hardware.  (No forklift
upgrades).

In message <19980425050329.10670.qmail at hotmail.com>, "Ehab Hadi" writes:
>I think traffic shaping is very importent. I agree to the point
>that the new traffic shaping approches tends to shape on near the
>edges, but that would not prevent applying such approches in the
>core especially if its an interprise net.
>The shapping implemintation preferred to be implemented in switch
>because the hardware is simply fast and efficient.
>Jeremy,
>Would you please specify what kind of Cisco platform that you are 
>using?
>
>Ehab Hadi
>Northern Telecom.
>Interprise Networking
>Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4H7
>Canada
>
>
>>From owner-nanog at merit.edu Fri Apr 24 09:39:40 1998
>>Received: from localhost (daemon at localhost)
>>	by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id MAA26391;
>>	Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:27:05 -0400 (EDT)
>>Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:25:12 
>-0400
>>Received: (from majordom at localhost)
>>	by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) id MAA26259
>>	for nanog-outgoing; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:25:11 -0400 (EDT)
>>Received: from freeside.fc.net (freeside.fc.net [207.170.70.2])
>>	by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA26217
>>	for <nanog at merit.edu>; Fri, 24 Apr 1998 12:24:37 -0400 (EDT)
>>Received: from freeside.fc.net (localhost.fc.net [127.0.0.1])
>>	by freeside.fc.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA14282;
>>	Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:24:30 -0500 (CDT)
>>Message-Id: <199804241624.LAA14282 at freeside.fc.net>
>>To: "Natambu Obleton" <no at frontier.net>
>>cc: nanog at merit.edu
>>Subject: Re: Traffic Shapping
>>In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 23 Apr 1998 17:51:16 MDT."
>>             <072601bd6f12$b4f15050$3b8d2dc7 at hermosa.frontier.net>
>>Date: Fri, 24 Apr 1998 11:24:29 -0500
>>From: Jeremy Porter <jerry at freeside.fc.net>
>>Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu
>>
>>
>>Sure we do it all the time.  There are CPU limitations on the
>>amount of total traffic that can be pushed through a router that
>>is traffic shaping.  I'm assuming because all the shaped traffic is
>>process switched.  Also you will probably want to dedicate a router
>>to it.
>>
>>Typically these are only useful near the customer connection, as
>>you can really only shape outbound packets.  (unless you
>>traffic shape at your boarders, and have a "large" network, you've
>>already paid for the traffic by the time you discard it.)
>>
>>In message <072601bd6f12$b4f15050$3b8d2dc7 at hermosa.frontier.net>, 
>"Natambu Oble
>>ton" writes:
>>>Has anyone here successfully implement the traffic shaping option on a 
>Cisco
>>>router?
>>>--
>>>Natambu Obleton - Network Administrator - Frontier Internet Inc.
>>>970 385 4177 - fax: 970 385 6745 - http://www.frontier.net
>>>777 Main St. - Suite #201 - Durango - Colorado - 81301 - USA
>>>
>>>
>>
>>---
>>Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc.      jerry at fc.net
>>PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708  | 512-458-9810
>>http://www.fc.net
>>
>
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>

---
Jeremy Porter, Freeside Communications, Inc.      jerry at fc.net
PO BOX 80315 Austin, Tx 78708  | 512-458-9810
http://www.fc.net