espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
 ·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
 ·Comcast
 ·Embarq
| reply to Dogfather
Re: FAP and CAP
said by Dogfather  :That's irrelevant. The traffic shaping is always in effect. The only difference is who is traffic shaped and who isn't. First off, it's not really traffic shaping. If you're a heavy user and you get tagged into the best effort class, your traffic will only be impacted so much as light users are trying to get packets on the network. If you're a heavy user, the channel is getting busy enough to start to implement the tagging, but never actually reaches a point of saturation, there is no impact to anyone's traffic.
Second, this isn't in effect all the time. I suggest you re-read the technical details of the proposal; the requeuing only takes place when the channel reaches a near congested state. The overwhelming majority of the time there is no action taken at all by the system.
It's the solution for 2 distinct problems: reduce the impact by chronic heavy users (CAP), and reduce short term bottlenecks that can occur during times of peak demand (FAP). |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
| That makes zero sense.
The FAP alleviates network traffic issues for casual users. If there is no congestion, then no cap is warranted. If there is network congestion, the FAP is all that is warranted.
IOW, the FAP reduces the impact of chronic heavy users if they're impacting other users and the FAP reduces the impact of extended use during periods of peak demand. The FAP is all that is needed. Caps are unjustified if you already have a fair access policy in effect. If chronic heavy users aren't affecting other users then it shouldn't be a concern. |
