[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Silently dropping QoS marked packets on the greater Internet
- Subject: Silently dropping QoS marked packets on the greater Internet
- From: mtinka at globaltransit.net (Mark Tinka)
- Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 13:12:49 +0800
- In-reply-to: <A92EB23D9E64824189C99C5ABF833104197EA51D@mbx024-e1-nj-2.exch024.domain.local>
- References: <CAB+pCuF6BNsKXbiAEXPqMXucqTJ0hfTLbDrqWBLkoY3z8+FH0g@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <A92EB23D9E64824189C99C5ABF833104197EA51D@mbx024-e1-nj-2.exch024.domain.local>
On Friday, September 02, 2011 10:49:32 PM Jeff Saxe wrote:
> Seriously, I would expect that most public Internet
> carriers, unless you paid them extra fees to pay
> attention to the DSCP markings, would completely ignore
> them and treat it all as best-effort traffic, right up
> to and including the last-mile circuit that should be
> the congestion point at which QoS would be most useful
> to differentiate. I don't think it would be the stated
> policy of any public ISP to drop other-than-zero-marked
> packets, especially if it's a transit somewhere that's
> out of reach of either you or the other customer you're
> trying to reach.
I think that DSCP 0 is safest for Internet traffic. As such,
if a network is going to deploy QoS, they would do well to
implement this safety net for Internet traffic so that said
traffic doesn't fall victim to restrictive policies of non-0
DSCP strategies, or just as equally, doesn't get scheduled
with a better advantage than is necessary, as that would
cost money.
Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20110909/458aae08/attachment.bin>