Alex Bligh was alleged to have written:
But if you don't want burst - you appear to just want to simulate a fractional DS-3 - why don't you just set the relevant number of timeslots to be used either end? This works well. And guarantees no complications.
If your trying to test with a-typical real-world parameters, wouldn't it be prefereable to also test utilizing a clear channel pipe with a rate-limited/policed PVC defined? My experience has been that most carriers don't like to deliver channelized DS-3's, instead they throw out a clear-channel loop, aggregate it into their ATM network, drag it to their router etc, then define an ATM PVC across it to the rate agreed upon to do the "fractionalizing". (I suspect this has something to do with the fact that Channelized cards for their switches tend to be bit more expensive and less cost effective for Frac DS-3 usage?) In the ATM-based Frac DS-3 scenario, you're doing rate-limiting by default as you must define the PVC to the bandwidth that you are selling to your customer. (typically at your ATM switch with matching rate queues on your router as well). Perhaps shaping would come in handy however to optimize/prioritize particular types of traffic for your customer(s). All in all, IMHO, I think you really have to consider how you are aggregating your customers to your network, and how policing or shaping will play into/against that. If you're aggregating via an ATM switch into your router(s), it becomes a different ball game from terminating individual clear channel or even channelized pipes directly to your router(s). I do agree though, if it agrees with your network/aggregation design, shaping is much nicer. /Alex Kiwerski