Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Say I'm a VOIP provider.  All of my traffic is voice, so, usually gets
high priority markings.  Therefore I expect most of my in/outbound
traffic is marked as a high priority.  You're saying that I need to pay
for a 10x bigger port to ensure that I can pass/receive all my traffic
correctly without the IX switches dropping it because it doesn't conform.


Actually, to cope with potentially unbounded amounts of audio and
video, I don't see a physically possible alternative to traffic policing
for conformance with an SLA, unless the SLA allows for 100% of
the installed ingress bandwidth to be real-time packets. With
this type of traffic, the traditional all-you-can-eat approach
to traffic is neither fair nor neutral.

What SLA?��

As I said in my previous post.�� IXes are just a subsitute for lots of cross connects etc.�� Cross connects don't make packet dropping decisions, so neither should an IX.�� If people are running out of bandwidth on their IX port or the IX fabric then it sounds like more traffic needs to be rolled off onto PNIs.

If people want to bilaterally trust their DSCP bits, then fine - all power to them, but don't enforce some crazy SLA based QOS madness on an IX I want to just pass packets for me.

MMC

Yes, that's a change. But ignoring this problem won't vanish it, IMHO.

    Brian