From: ying chang (ying_c@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Apr 13 2002 - 09:53:58 GMT-3
If bc, be are not given, do we use bc = 1.5*CIR, be = 2*CIR as Cisco
recommanded or we should ask the proctor?
Thanks,
Chang
>From: "Ahmed Mamoor Amimi" <mamoor@ieee.org>
>Reply-To: "Ahmed Mamoor Amimi" <mamoor@ieee.org>
>To: "ying chang" <ying_c@hotmail.com>, <DHSTS68@dhs.state.il.us>,
><Jim.Brown@CaseLogic.com>, <yamanaka@fsas.fujitsu.com>,
><ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: Re: Qos - class-based policer
>Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 10:18:52 +0500
>
>Class-based policer is much easier, flexible and with more options to do
>and
>get to as specific as u can....
>
>and can be called anywhere any place u want...
>
>
>-Mamoor
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: ying chang <ying_c@hotmail.com>
>To: <DHSTS68@dhs.state.il.us>; <Jim.Brown@CaseLogic.com>;
><yamanaka@fsas.fujitsu.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 9:58 PM
>Subject: RE: Qos - class-based policer
>
>
> > I've never used the class-based policer shown in the web pages myself,
>but
> > this would be something I would consider in addition to CAR:
> >
> >
>http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121newft/121
>t/121t5/dtpoli.htm
> > (class-based policer)
> > http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/cbpcar.html (class-based policer
>intro
> > with comparision with car)
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:07 GMT-3