From: Peter van Oene (pvo@xxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Apr 25 2002 - 07:36:25 GMT-3
anything higher than normal should be fine.
At 08:27 AM 4/25/2002 +0500, Ahmed Mamoor Amimi wrote:
>So what should we use when we are told that prioritize traffice so that they
>are escaped first.... 5 or 7.... what is our limit.
>
>-Mamoor
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Peter van Oene <pvo@usermail.com>
>To: Ahmed Mamoor Amimi <mamoor@ieee.org>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 11:38 PM
>Subject: Re: precedence
>
>
> > control traffic generally flows with 111. Hence, if you set your data
> > traffic to 111, your routers with no longer be able to prioritize control
> > packets which can have rather negative effects when the dropping
> > begins. Many times 111 and 110 are also handled with equal priority which
> > may be the reason why cisco advises against both.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
> > At 08:07 PM 4/24/2002 +0500, Ahmed Mamoor Amimi wrote:
> > >Can some expert tell me why it is not recommended precedence value of 6
>and 7.
> > >I have seen at CCO that it will produce potential problem with the core
>data
> > >traffic like routing and other signalling.... if this is so then why
>these
> > >value are given to be configured.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >-Mamoor
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:19 GMT-3