Therefore, the QoS solution design faces more challenges.
The moving of wireless terminals results in more unpredictable traffic on the network. In addition, with the development of wireless networks, more and more users and enterprises use wireless terminals. Especially, interactive video applications have high requirements on real-time performance. Video traffic occupies more bandwidth than voice traffic. For enterprises, applications such as HD video conference and HD video surveillance also generate a large amount of HD video traffic on the network. In recent years, traffic of video applications have grown explosively. If service quality requirements are not met for a long time (for example, the service traffic volume exceeds the bandwidth limit for a long time), expand the network capacity or use dedicated devices to control services based on upper-layer applications. QoS is applicable to scenarios where traffic bursts occur and the quality of important services needs to be guaranteed. Increasing network bandwidth is the best solution, but is costly compared to using a service quality guarantee policy that manages traffic congestion. As a result, service quality deteriorates or even services become unavailable. Burst traffic will deteriorate network quality, cause network congestion, increase the forwarding delay, and even cause packet loss. The bandwidth occupied by non-real-time services is unpredictable, and burst traffic often occurs. Therefore, they have high requirements on network stability.
Real-time services, such as voice services, occupy fixed bandwidth and are sensitive to network quality changes.
One of the advantages of fiber is that it it allows much higher upstream bandwidth than the typically way more asymmetric XDSL or DOCSIS links.Services on the IP network can be classified into real-time and non-real-time services. (But note for many internet flows the bottleneck will be completely outside of your control, so in reality you will have trouble statically accounting for anything more remote than your direct access link, as those links are typically shared between users and over-subscribed and hence do not guarantee fixed bandwidths per user).īTW, 20/1? That seems quite "cruel" from your ISP to not go at least 20/10. But for the overhead accounting you really only need to model/specify the overhead applicable at the bottleneck link independent on all the links before and after. Yes, as far as I can tell you are running a dualNAT setup there. My question is… Im using a DIR-835 behind a Huawei HG8245H which i cannot put to bridge mode (because of my ISP settings, but is using PPPoE) though i have the huawei modem in DMZ, i believe im dual natting or at least adding a hop to the network… should i increase the packet overhead or keep these settings?
0 kommentar(er)
