QoS for Office365

Tue Jul 9 17:48:00 UTC 2019

On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 10:02 AM Tom Beecher <beecher at beecher.cc> wrote:
>>
>> At a previous employer (AOL, doing VoIP for customer service / call
>> centers, ~2004) we had a number of contractual agreements with
>> multiple providers to honor our QoS markings -- as far as I could tell
>> (marking test traffic under congestion events) only one of about seven
>> did anything at all with the marking, and that wasn't enough to make
>> any difference... I briefly toyed with the idea of asking for some
>> money back / trying to enforce the terms of the agreements, but
>> figured that there wasn't much point - expecting QoS to work in
>> someone else's network based upon your markings seems like a fool's
>> errand.
>
>
> Generally speaking, I agree that making QoS features work consistently on an external network you do not control is a fool's errand.
>
> But if that language was inserted into the contracts, and you can demonstrably prove it's not being done, enforcing contract terms should always be done. Depending on the strength of the remedy, could have been a lot of free service, enough financial incentive for them to MAKE it work correctly, or leverage to open renegotiations for more favorable terms for you.
>
> You know that in reverse they would have done the same to you. :)
>

Yeah, at that point in AOL's trajectory there were (at least from my
point of view!) much much bigger issues -- like, "Who's getting laid
off this week? and how do I remove their access? and who's going to do
whatever they were doing (if anything)?!" and trying to make enhanced
cRTP work over GRE over yet more GRE over IPSEC (because, well,
reasons).
Yes, in an ideal world we would have received some sort of credits --
but then again, in an ideal world, I wouldn't have been trying to run
VOIP over cRTP over GRE over GRE over IPSEC over DS3 to E3 converters
to India...

W

> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 6:38 PM Warren Kumari <warren at kumari.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 5:50 PM Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 8/Jul/19 21:03, Robert Webb wrote:
>> > > I took the OP's request as for doing QoS at the edge of their network
>> > > and not necessarily the entire path.
>> >
>> > Indeed, but even then, you could be handing off the traffic to a
>> > downstream customer, and can't guarantee what they do to those ToS fields.
>>
>> I disagree -- you *can* guarantee what someone else will do with your
>> ToS fields....... they will A: ignore them and / or B: scribble all
>> over them.
>>
>> At a previous employer (AOL, doing VoIP for customer service / call
>> centers, ~2004) we had a number of contractual agreements with
>> multiple providers to honor our QoS markings -- as far as I could tell
>> (marking test traffic under congestion events) only one of about seven
>> did anything at all with the marking, and that wasn't enough to make
>> any difference... I briefly toyed with the idea of asking for some
>> money back / trying to enforce the terms of the agreements, but
>> figured that there wasn't much point - expecting QoS to work in
>> someone else's network based upon your markings seems like a fool's
>> errand.
>>
>> W
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > As another person stated, the real answer is to add more bandwidth if
>> > > you are having to QoS to Office365 because it is affecting other
>> > > internet based services.
>> >
>> > Yes and no.
>> >
>> > More bandwidth never hurt anyone, but packet loss in the remote network
>> > toward the cloud will hurt you.
>> >
>> > Mark.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
>> idea in the first place.
>> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
>> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
>> of pants.
>>    ---maf

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf