Hi Mubashir, Looks like it is a 10y old mantra "Intent-based QoS/QoE". You would better search for a feedback from some Enterprise/Business networking alias, not Telco. It does not makes sense for Telco, Telco is the "best effort". The best $$ from B2B segment (in Telco) that I have seen was 50%:50%, but even for that Telco, B2B traffic was still <5%. The rest was B2C (means "subscribers"). 5% of traffic could be easily prioritized (simple and hard policy), and that’s it - problem solved. No need for any fancy QoS - subscribers (95%) would never pay for it. The situation is different for Enterprises where QoS may be needed for >50% of traffic. Hence, search your customer there. There were hundreds of attempts for every big Telco to depart from "best effort" and sell 95% of traffic to subscriber or OTT (on the other end). All failed, Telco is a "dump pipe", like them or not. I could say even more - there are example of anti-QoS. Some Telco implemented advanced traffic engineering to equalize the load on all infrastructure. It is possible to improve ROI in the order of 30%. I have seen a situation when Enterprise customer was asking Telco: "how you did it? The ping from the neighboring desktops in the branch has a 10ms different latency to HQ inside the same MPLS VPN". It is because hash has put one ping into the short LSP tunnel, but the second one in a different LSP tunnel. You see: ROI is more important than QoS, QoS could be sacrificed on purpose. If you change your topic to "Intend-based OAM" (that is actually "closed loop automation" to predict and repair), then it make sense for both: Telco and Enterprise. But then "latency", "jitter" and all other QoS staff should not be mentioned. "Mean time to repair" is the KPI. Eduard
-----Original Message----- From: manwar--- via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2026 21:28 To: nanog@lists.nanog.org Cc: manwar@illinois.edu Subject: Re: Operational feedback on policy redundancy
Hi all,
Thanks for the feedback, and apologies if this isn’t the right forum for this kind of question.
To clarify: the data comes from an intent-based enterprise network, where the intents are high-level requirements collected from a running production system.
By redundancy, I mean cases like: - A general requirement (e.g., “latency < 20ms for all services”) alongside a weaker, service-specific one (e.g., “VoIP latency < 25ms”), where the latter is effectively subsumed.
By conflicts, I mean situations like: - One intent requiring all traffic to traverse a firewall, while another requires no middleboxes for performance-sensitive services.
In this dataset, such cases often appeared without explicit documentation of how they were resolved. My assumption is that, in practice, these get handled via implicit prioritization or later clarification.
So my main question is: At the high-level goal / intent layer (before translation into ACLs, BGP policy, etc.): - Do redundant or overlapping requirements tend to exist in practice? - Is it common for conflicts to be resolved through undocumented clarifications or implicit prioritization?
I do intend to publish the results of this work once the project is complete, with the goal of making it useful for operators as well.
Appreciate any insights.
Best regards, Mubashir _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/nanog@lists.nanog.org/message/4JDEGK2 5VXD74NSLJXJVVFDCEZFXLSK6/