Hi Toby, I absolutely understand the rational of where you are coming from. I agree with questions raised by Paul - we need to be characterize the requirement a bit further.
I know QoS is important especially if there is an overload of traffic with multiple different use cases. However do we see it any different from any other VPN we currently run? I agree policing, shaping, marking etc are mechanisms to implement QoS and are important. May be the requirement would be to specify the capability to do fine grained QoS on a per peer basis on the Hub. Sounds reasonable? Thanks, Vishwas On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > These requirements might be useful to add in the next draft, but they need > to be refined. > > On Apr 26, 2013, at 8:10 PM, Toby Mao <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The ADVPN solution SHOULD be able to implement Quality of Service (QoS) > to regulate the traffic in the ADVPN topology. > > Why is this statement needed? Do you see situations where an ADVPN > solution would be *prevented* from implementing some sort of QoS because it > was an ADVPN? > > > ADVPN peer SHOULD NOT send excessive traffic to the other members of > ADVPN. > > How would you define "excessive"? Where would that measurement be done? > > > The traffic for each ADVPN peer CAN be measured individually for shaping > and policing. > > Why is this statement needed? Do you see situations where an ADVPN > solution would be *prevented* from measuring individually? > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec >
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
