From: Curtis Phillips (phillipscurtis@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Tue Aug 07 2001 - 10:08:43 GMT-3
While I suppose process switching the packets would result in a slower output r
ate of packets, I have to say that I would never have thought of that as a solu
tion. Seems like a sort of non-sensical question. All of the qos solutions to m
y knowledge would tend to buffer to avoid dropping packets. With sliding window
s and the tcp/ip stack working to cause restransmission when necessary.
"Daniel C. Young" <danyoung99@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Group,
>
>Question #2 on Fatkid Lab 461:
>R4 and R2 are used to support WAN connections only for the Ethernet network.
>Take corrective steps to limit the amount of packets that will accumulate in
>the serial port output buffers, if the Ethernet segment is sending a great
>deal of traffic to R1.
>
>Solution:
>'no ip route-cache
>
>Explanation:
>Normally a Cisco router will do fast switching on an interface after
>processing the first packet in a data stream. Fast switching a type of layer
>three switching, that allows Cisco routers to achieve very high performance
>without extremely high speed processors.? If you disable fast switching you
>slow the router down because every packet must be inspected by the CPU and
>routed conventionally.
>
>Isn't there a better way to do this? I was thinking of configuring CAR on
>the ethernet interface for incoming traffic, which will limit the rate of
>incoming traffic thereby reducing the amount of packets that will accumulate
>on the slow link's serial interface buffers, such as:
>
>Interface Ethernet0
> traffic-rate input 64000 10000000
>
>Can I get any yeas or neas?
>
>Daniel C. Young
>Sr. Network Engineer
>CCNP (ATM, Security & Voice Specialist),
>CCDP, CCSE, MCSE+I
>
>SBC Internet Data Center
>(949) 221-1928 Work
>(714) 350-8945 Cell
>young@pobox.com
>**Please read:http://www.groupstudy.com/list/posting.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:31:46 GMT-3