Traffic Shapping

Sun Apr 26 03:09:27 UTC 1998

What I meant to shape on the core: Is traffic aggregation. This is
why most vendors trying to propose different solutions hence to scale 
core, e.g., proposed IETF MPLS.
Regarding the shaping issue on the Cisco Ethernet is not appreciated
while the shaping preferred to be provisioned  at the outboand 
interface.
I would like also to add Cisco has powerful tools must be studied well 
before installing third party solution. I agree that 
traffic patterns must be studied well to evaluate what approach that
must be followed.

Ehab H. Hadi
Northern Telecom  
Ottawa, ON
ehabh at hotmail.com

>From owner-nanog at merit.edu Sat Apr 25 15:14:14 1998
>Received: from localhost (daemon at localhost)
>	by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) with SMTP id SAA20768;
>	Sat, 25 Apr 1998 18:05:57 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: by merit.edu (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sat, 25 Apr 1998 18:05:28 
-0400
>Received: (from majordom at localhost)
>	by merit.edu (8.8.7/8.8.5) id SAA20729
>	for nanog-outgoing; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 18:05:27 -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 SAA20725
>	for <nanog at merit.edu>; Sat, 25 Apr 1998 18:05:21 -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 RAA21337;
>	Sat, 25 Apr 1998 17:05:16 -0500 (CDT)
>Message-Id: <199804252205.RAA21337 at freeside.fc.net>
>To: "Ehab Hadi" <ehabh at hotmail.com>
>cc: no at frontier.net, nanog at merit.edu
>Subject: Re: Traffic Shapping
>In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 25 Apr 1998 01:03:28 EDT."
>             <19980425050329.10670.qmail at hotmail.com>
>Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 17:05:16 -0500
>From: Jeremy Porter <jerry at freeside.fc.net>
>Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu
>
>
>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
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com