Colton Conor <colton.co...@gmail.com> writes: > So does putting an in-line X86 box that supports FQ-Codel before the DSLAM > solve the problem in your point of view?
Yes that would solve the problem. > It would have to know for each subscriber what their speed was of > course to do the proper rate limiting. If this device did rate > limiting both on downstream and upstream would there be any reason to > also have a fq-codel enabled CPE? Yes, you would have the opposite problem from the CPE-only solution -- limiting upstream traffic only works as long as the flows are being nice. If there is a CPE anyway, and you don't care about one direction having lower quality shaping, it seems more obvious to put the shaping on the CPE. Maintaining a Linux server with a whole lot of bridge interfaces is certainly possible. I would be very interested in knowing how that solution performs. /Benny _______________________________________________ juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
