From: Roger Dellaca (rdellaca@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Jan 25 2001 - 19:00:40 GMT-3
doesn't shaping keep traffic within certain limits? Isn't the real difference
that both kep traffic to a certain amo0unt within a certain time period, but sh
aping only queues while CAR drops? I know CAR can also set precedence (classifi
cation!!), but in big terms controlling the amount of traffic getting on the wi
re, isn't the dropping the real difference?
>>> "Michael E. Flannagan" <mflannag@cisco.com> 01/25 1:40 PM >>>
I disagree...CAR is the way to go. GTS "shapes" (as the name implies), it
is not a rate-limit.
------------------------------------------------------------
C i s c o S y s t e m s Michael E. Flannagan
| | Network Consulting Engineer
||| ||| Research Triangle Park, NC
||||||| ||||||| (919) 392-4550
.:|||||||||||:.:|||||||||||:. mflannag@cisco.com
------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001, Desyatnik, Yan wrote:
>
> The simplest solution is to do GTS
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wayne Hu [mailto:wayneccie@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 10:34 AM
> To: Lab Guy; ccie
> Subject: RE: custom queuing
>
> I think you should use CAR
>
> rate-limit input access-group 100 .............
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On
> Behalf Of
> Lab Guy
> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 9:59 AM
> To: ccie
> Subject: custom queuing
>
>
> Would this limit www traffic to 2.5 meg on my ethernet
> interface?
>
> queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 list 100
> queue-list 1 queue 1 byte-count 2500000
> queue-list 1 default 2
>
> int e0
> custom-queue-list 1
>
> access-list 100 permit tcp any any eq www
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:44 GMT-3