bert hubert wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 10:59:38AM +0100, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > > > TCP is generally too smart to be delayed proper by "randomly" dropped packets > > without any signs in RTT. Especially when the RTT is small. > > Richard Stevens disagrees with you. > > > And such a administrative boundary is the one I am playing on. The boundary > > between a small customer and his ISP. The ISP obviously have the luxury of > > egress, but the customer does not on traffic received by him. > > > > Exacly how would this need vanish? > > You can turn ingress into egress by inserting another machine of course. > Ingress shaping, well, is weird if you have no concept of an 'ingress > queue'. Once you start working with tagging for DiffServ, you find that an ingress queue is a valuable idea. From our perspective here it is a differentiator in looking at some of the "big iron" from the likes of Juniper, Anritsu, Marconi, Cisco and Alcatel. Specifically, we're looking at priority queueing for management of various services: VoIP, streaming video (unicast and multicast), H.323, etc. Ingress queueing provides us an opportunity to tag and shape coming into the router rather than simply shaping on egress. Our campus requires (geographic considerations) 7 internal routers before we come to the edge. We have to shape on ingress at the first one, then maintain the marking and policies throughout the network. -- Gerry Creager -- gerry@xxxxxxxxxxx Network Engineering Academy for Advanced Telecommunications and Learning Technologies Texas A&M University 979.458.4020 (Phone) -- 979.847.8578 (Fax)
