Rate shaping in Active E FTTx networks

Mark Gauvin MGauvin at dryden.ca
Fri Jul 27 03:48:00 UTC 2012

Juniper dynamic application awareness does a decent job and so does the cisco counterpart

saves buying more hw
From: Erik Muller [erikm at buh.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 10:21 PM
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Rate shaping in Active E FTTx networks

On 7/26/12 12:45 , Jason Lixfeld wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm trying to gauge what operators are doing to handle per-subscriber
 > Internet access PIR bandwidth in Active E FTTx networks.
> I presume operators would want to limit the each subscriber to a
> certain  PIR, but within that limit, do things like perform preferential
 > treatment of interactive services like steaming video or Skype, etc.,
 > ahead of non-interactive services like FTP.
> My impression is that a subscriber's physical access in these networks
> is  exponentially larger than their allocated amount of Internet access.
 > This would leave ample room on the physical access access for other
 > services like Voice and IPTV that might run on separate VLANs than the
 > Internet access VLAN. That said, I doubt there's really that much of a
 > concern about allocating PIR on these other service VLANs.
> So in terms of PIR for Internet access, is there some magic box that
> sits  between the various subscriber aggregation points and the core,
 > which takes care of shaping the subscriber's Internet access PIR, while
 > making sure that the any preferential treatment of interactive services
 > is performed.
> Is that a lot to ask for one box? The ridiculously deep buffers
> required  in order to shape to PIR vs. police to it (because policing to
 > a PIR is just plain ugly) and the requirements to perform any sort of
 > preferential packet treatment above and beyond that seem like quite a
 > lot to ask of one box. Am I wrong?
> Who might make a box like this, if it exists? And if not, what are
> folks  using the achieve these results?
> Thanks in advance for any insights..

I've seen a few deployments using Packeteer's (now BlueCoat) PacketShaper
for this purpose; the only downside I've heard with that platform is cost.
  Sandvine and Fortinet are a couple other options that have different
approaches, but have a lot of this functionality rolled in alongside their
broader security services.


More information about the NANOG mailing list