On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Curtis Owings <Curtis.Owings@chorus.co.nz> wrote:

You know... CIR philosophy would be a fantastic topic for this body to discuss (maybe you already have).

CIR is often poorly understood which then results in poor and costly implementations. �This isn't to say it can not be a very valuable product--just that folks often don't realize what they're asking for.

CIR gets weirder in regulated environments like ours. �Consider the "bitstream 2" service being defined by the TCF and CFH. �Simply stated it looks like 30 m/s downstream, 10 m/s upstream, with 2.5 m/s up/down CIR. �It sounds pretty good and straight forward. �But examine what that means. �Only 2.5 meg of what you send can be CIR. �In a multi-flow data stream you will, of course, only want your delay sensitive/critical data to be tagged has high priority. �Stop!

Tagging should not be a factor between edge devices. Why should you care about what my traffic is? �If a service provider "promises" to deliver 2.5Mb CIF, then it is up to "me" the user to maintain the outbound - and to a degree inbound - traffic flows for my "critical" data within that boundary.

Nicholas