cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
309
Views
0
Helpful
5
Replies
vrz rrr
Beginner

QOS policy for http (asymetric trafic)

hello all,

I know that http traffic is asymetric, I mean that outgoing traffic has a smaller volume than incoming trafic. (web browsing, no file transfert from inside)

my question :

does it make sense from a QOS point of view to allocate a smaller bandwidth on the inside interface for outgoing packets and a greater one on the outside interface for the returning traffic ?

Thank you for replying.

Best regards.

V.

1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Disclaimer

The  Author of this posting offers the information contained within this  posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that  there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose.  Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not  be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this  posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.

Liability Disclaimer

In  no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including,  without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out  of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author  has been advised of the possibility of such damage.

Posting

vrz rrr wrote:

hello,

why does it mean ?

Regards.

V.

"it" = QoS policy

"why" = for the reasons you mentioned in your original post.

I.e. Often QoS policies can customized or unique for traffic that's expected to pass through them.

As another example, if you only use FTP to transfer some data from the Internet but never to it, a "down" policy might have special QoS treatment for the expected FTP traffic; and "up" policy no special treatment, at all, for FTP traffic.

View solution in original post

5 REPLIES 5
Joseph W. Doherty
Hall of Fame Expert

Disclaimer

The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.

Liability Disclaimer

In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.

Posting

It may/could.

hello,

why does it mean ?

Regards.

V.

Disclaimer

The  Author of this posting offers the information contained within this  posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that  there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose.  Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not  be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this  posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.

Liability Disclaimer

In  no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including,  without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out  of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author  has been advised of the possibility of such damage.

Posting

vrz rrr wrote:

hello,

why does it mean ?

Regards.

V.

"it" = QoS policy

"why" = for the reasons you mentioned in your original post.

I.e. Often QoS policies can customized or unique for traffic that's expected to pass through them.

As another example, if you only use FTP to transfer some data from the Internet but never to it, a "down" policy might have special QoS treatment for the expected FTP traffic; and "up" policy no special treatment, at all, for FTP traffic.

Ok, but I do not understand why you are answering that way, along with that "legal" and awful disclaimer.

Regards anyway.

V.

Disclaimer

The   Author of this posting offers the information contained within this   posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that   there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose.   Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not   be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of  this  posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.

Liability Disclaimer

In   no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including,   without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising  out  of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if  Author  has been advised of the possibility of such damage.

Posting

Laugh - yes the "legal" stuff above is awful!  Alas, it's in response to what's in the Cisco User Agreement to use this site.  I've been in court over contract dispute and the Cisco's user agreement shouldn't be taken too lightly, but I digress.

If my answer still isn't clear or you feel your question isn't answered, let me know.

Your original question was:

my question :

does it make sense from a QOS point of view to  allocate a smaller bandwidth on the inside interface for outgoing  packets and a greater one on the outside interface for the returning  traffic ?

I originally answered "It may/could."  a very brief way of saying yes, it may make sense or it could make sense from a QoS point of view to allocate smaller bandwidth on the inside interface for outgoing  packets and a greater one on the outside interface for the returning  traffic.

The reason for may/could, it might not too.  QoS depends on what you're trying and/or need to accomplish with QoS.  QoS policies in each direction might be identical or very much different.