Perry Lorier wrote:
One improvement we'd like to make is to change it so within a "bin" (aka User), we reorder traffic so that we deliver traffic with v4 ToS bits asking to be delivered last is deprefed. This means the user still gets 1/nth of the traffic, but the individual user can use the ToS bits to select which traffic they receive first. Setting your ToS to say all your traffic is high priority doesn't get you any more of the link, and in fact would have no benefit. Setting your VoIP traffic to have low latency ToS, and your bulk downloads to have a "low cost" ToS, would deliver your VoIP packets first, and then when there are no VoIP packets, would get your bulk download packets.
This seems to be the fairest possible solution we could come up with while we work on improving the amount of bandwidth through our network.
But in the context of the discussion it's still an example from inside a network with a single administrative control. The nearest parallel in an IXP would be for peers to act on bilaterally agreed DSCP's while the IXP gives them whatever bandwidth (i.e. interface capacity) the peers are paying for. Which from the IXP's viewpoint would not be new. - Donald Neal -- Donald Neal | "If you turn on American TV, there's a Research Officer | huge choice of nothing you want to see and WAND | unfortunately I think that's the case The University of Waikato | here now as well." - Dominic West