Re: [IPsec] One comment to this draft//Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-ipsecme-ad-vpn-problem-06.txt

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 <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> 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 <yumao9@gmail.com> 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
> IPsec@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
>