From: tom cheung (tkc9789@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Mar 03 2001 - 11:46:48 GMT-3
So, in your opinion, what are the pros and cons of Custom que Vs WFQ? For
example, if I want to drain more packets for mission critical
application(s), which QoS method would you choose?
>From: adiment@uswest.com
>Reply-To: adiment@uswest.com
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: GTS/CAR/custom queuing which one is best for non-ip traffic?
>Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 15:32:46 -0600
>
>With custom queuing you would not give DLSw 50% of the bandwidth but rather
>50% of the total byte count of all queues. DLSw 4500 bytes, IP 1500 bytes,
>www 1500 bytes, ipx 1500 bytes or something like that. DLSw will get 50%
>of
>the total byte throughput ALL the time not just a capacity.
>This is a rough way of traffic shaping but it will do the job.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alan Basinger [mailto:abasinge@swbell.net]
>Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 2:21 PM
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: GTS/CAR/custom queuing which one is best for non-ip
>traffic?
>
>
>Hi all,
>After studying QOS issues for a bit today I have a question about non-ip
>traffic and rate limiting or policing as it may be called by some.
>
>GTS and CAR/DCAR only handle ip traffic from what I have read and the
>threads on groupstudy. Now what if you wanted the same functionality with
>other protocols what would you use?
>
>In order to be specific in the types of traffic including things such as
>IPX, WWW, DLSw, and IP it looks as if Custom-queuing with the byte-count is
>my only choice? But it seems to only buffer or rather queue the packets
>until the queue fills up then it drops them. So to give DLSw traffic 50% of
>the bandwidth I would set the queue to 1/2 of the bandwidth of the serial
>link??? This would then be filled only if traffic was exceeding the link
>capacity. This does not guarantee 50% of the link but give 50% of the
>buffer
>space to that traffic only when congestion is experienced so is it really
>getting 50% of the bandwidth I think not, but I read that this is how to
>deal with non-ip traffic?
>
>It seems a sub-optimal choice considering if it was IP only I would be able
>to CAR, DCAR, or GTS.
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Regards
>Alan Basinger
>Systems Engineer
>SBC DataComm
>Houston Texas
>abasinge@swbell.net
>
> | |
> ||| |||
> .|||||. .|||||.
>.:|||||||||:.:|||||||||:.
> C i s c o S y s t e m s
> Certified Gold Partner
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:29:19 GMT-3