From: Michael E. Flannagan (mflannag@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon Jan 29 2001 - 12:01:40 GMT-3
IP Precedence isn't "calculated" it's set (ie, user defined with something
like CAR). *Weight* is calculated, based upon the IP Precedence.
------------------------------------------------------------
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 Fri, 26 Jan 2001, zheng yi wrote:
>
> Hi Micheale:
>
> How do we caculate this precedence value. Does it base on predefined TCP port
or dynamic assign base on packet size.
>
> Is there any formula on caculating this precedence value.
>
> >From: "Michael E. Flannagan"
> >Reply-To: "Michael E. Flannagan"
> >To: Justin Menga
> >CC: "'ccielab@groupstudy.com'"
> >Subject: RE: wfq
> >Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 17:03:34 -0500 (EST)
> >
> >Correct. WFQ uses the formula: Weight = 4096/(Precedence+1). As such,
> >all packets with a given IP Precedence (regardless of which conversation
> >they belong to, are weighted equally.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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 Fri, 26 Jan 2001, Justin Menga wrote:
> >
> > > Probably better if I used the term 'weighting' - in WFQ, weighting is onl
y
> > > based on IP precedence (and of course interactive traffic)....
> > >
> > > In CBWFQ, you have greater control of the weighting by assigning bandwidt
h
> > > to anything that can be classified with an ACL (i.e. all 'conversations'
> > > that fit the ACL)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Justin Menga CCIE #6640 MCSE+I CCSE
> > > WAN Specialist
> > > Computerland New Zealand
> > > PO Box 3631, Auckland
> > > DDI: (+64) 9 360 4864 Mobile: (+64) 25 349 599
> > > mailto: justin.menga@computerland.co.nz
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michael E. Flannagan [mailto:mflannag@cisco.com]
> > > Sent: Friday, 26 January 2001 10:47 a.m.
> > > To: Justin Menga
> > > Subject: RE: wfq
> > >
> > >
> > > Not true, Justin. CBWFQ allows you to perform QoS per class, not per
> > > conversation. That is its fundamental difference. With WFQ, packets are
> > > classified into "conversations" by a mixture of things, including port an
d
> > > prtocol numbers.
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > 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 Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Justin Menga wrote:
> > >
> > > > Newer IOS feature called LLQ (Low Latency Queueing) which is in reality
> > > > Priority Queue Class-Based WFQ.
> > > >
> > > > CBWFQ is essentially WFQ except you can classify packets based on
> > > IP/TCP/UDP
> > > > information (WFQ only used IP precedence to classify).
> > > >
> > > > PQ-CBWFQ adds a priority queue that is always serviced ahead of the
> > > > CBWFQ's...
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Justin Menga CCIE #6640 MCSE+I CCSE
> > > > WAN Specialist
> > > > Computerland New Zealand
> > > > PO Box 3631, Auckland
> > > > DDI: (+64) 9 360 4864 Mobile: (+64) 25 349 599
> > > > mailto: justin.menga@computerland.co.nz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Dezso Csonka [mailto:dcsonka@cisco.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, 22 January 2001 11:13 p.m.
> > > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > Subject: wfq
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Is it possible to assigne priority to WFQ? I mean that can I assigne =
> > > > traffic like ftp or telnet to WFQ with different priority just like in
=
> > > > priority queuing?
> > > > The problem is that I dont understand how WFQ works.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > Dezs
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:27:47 GMT-3