From: ying chang (ying_c@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Wed May 08 2002 - 11:24:29 GMT-3
Thanks. I think this answer my question. Now I remember someone did mention
that the dlsw keyword is only used in the direct encapsulation a while back,
but I never could find any Cisco docuements said that.
>From: "Bauer, Rick" <BAUERR@toysrus.com>
>Reply-To: "Bauer, Rick" <BAUERR@toysrus.com>
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: DLSW Custom Queuing.
>Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 09:57:39 -0400
>
>This has always been one of those things that makes me go HMMM.
>
>I have always looked at it like this, access list do not apply to traffic
>originating from the router, so I use the tcp keyword with port 2065
>(queue-list 1 prot ip 16 tcp 2065) when queuing traffic from the router, I
>have also heard that the dlsw keyword applies to direct encapsulation only
>(but never verified with documentation or testing), I think that you should
>use a access-list for queuing when the traffic is passing through the
>router
>from some where else.
>
>
>
>Hope I was clear enough, I don't always explain what I am thinking well.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ahmed Mamoor Amimi [mailto:mamoor@ieee.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 10:32 AM
>To: ying chang; steven.j.nelson@bt.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Cc: stephen.paynter@bt.com
>Subject: Re: DLSW Custom Queuing.
>
>
>The below that steve have given is the best link for the dlsw queuing and
>stuff.
>
>Every where at the CCO i have seen that when u want to give priority or
>custom-queue to dlsw they have used the access-list and called the port #s
>in it and then applied it to the queuing . I guess this the finest way to
>do
>that.
>
>access-list 100 permit tcp any eq 2065 any
>access-list 100 permit tcp any any eq 2065
>
>if using dlsw priority then also do the same for 1981,1982,1983
>
>-Mamoor
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: ying chang <ying_c@hotmail.com>
>To: <steven.j.nelson@bt.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Cc: <stephen.paynter@bt.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:49 AM
>Subject: RE: DLSW Custom Queuing.
>
>
> > Steve,
> >
> > Thanks for the info. However, let's go back to the original question:
> >
> > "I was wondering does anyone have a URL that outlines the behaviour of
> > custom queuing when using DLSw keyword. i.e That this keyword permits
>SNA
> > traffic only and not all DLSw traffic"
> >
> > The above question troubles me a little bit, because if I interpret the
> > statement correctly, what you are saying is if I use the dlsw keyword in
>my
> > access-list, then SNA traffic will be allowed to go through, but not
>NetBIOS
> > or other non-routable traffic.
> >
> > Why a port number has anything to do with different layer's traffic?
>From
> > the web page, I suspect the dlsw keyword probably is the same as port
>2065,
> > and we'll only have to worry about the port numbers when the priority
>queue
> > is applied. Otherwise, as far as the custom queue concern, port 2065
>should
> > be sufficient. I know this contradict with the answers I've seen in the
> > past, but I'm more confused than ever when I think about the statement.
> >
> > Well, I guess I'll have to spend sometime to test it out and see what's
> > going on. Until then, if anyone knows when I have to use the the keyword
> > "dlsw" and when I should not (other than priority queue), please let me
> > know.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chang
> >
> >
> > >From: steven.j.nelson@bt.com
> > >Reply-To: steven.j.nelson@bt.com
> > >To: ying_c@hotmail.com, ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >CC: stephen.paynter@bt.com
> > >Subject: RE: DLSW Custom Queuing.
> > >Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 18:25:52 +0100
> > >
> > >Chang Et al,
> > >
> > >I have found the relevant document on CCO, the URL is :-
> > >
> > >http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/cc/pd/ibsw/ibdlsw/prodlit/dlsw5_rg.htm
> > >
> > >Interestingly enough it states that ports 2065 is also only used when
> > >prioritisation is required.
> > >
> > >Thanks
> > >
> > >Steve
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: ying chang [mailto:ying_c@hotmail.com]
> > >Sent: 07 May 2002 17:14
> > >To: Nelson,SJ,Steven,IVNH25 C; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > >Subject: Re: DLSW Custom Queuing.
> > >
> > >
> > >Hi Steve,
> > >
> > >I also have the same question. Have you verified it can only send SNA
> > >traffic already? If you haven't, I would say setup two PCs and see if
> > >NetBIOS traffic can pass thru the pipe would be a quick way to verify
>this
> > >behavior. After you finish this, you can use dspu to see if there's any
>SNA
> > >circuits. I'm not working on DLSW right now, but please keep me posted,
> > >because I'd like to know the answer too.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Chang
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: steven.j.nelson@bt.com
> > > >Reply-To: steven.j.nelson@bt.com
> > > >To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > >Subject: DLSW Custom Queuing.
> > > >Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 16:20:26 +0100
> > > >
> > > >All
> > > >
> > > >I have noted and tested the scenarios using custom queuing to
>restrict
> > > >bandwidth on an interface based on packet sizes, and I have used as
> > > >mentioned in this list the access list for DLSw ports instead of the
>DLSw
> > > >keyword in the queuing argument.
> > > >
> > > >I was wondering does anyone have a URL that outlines the behaviour of
> > > >custom
> > > >queuing when using DLSw keyword.
> > > >
> > > >i.e That this keyword permits SNA traffic only and not all DLSw
>traffic,
> > >I
> > > >have searched CCO but cannot find any reference to it.
> > > >
> > > >Thanks in advance
> > > >
> > > >Steve
> > > >
> > > >Steve Nelson
> > > >Customer Engineer
> > > >BT Ignite- National Solutions
> > > >T: +44 (0)1422 338881 M: +44 (0)7811 944172
> > > >e-mail: steven.j.nelson@bt.com
> > > >pp HW A170, PO Box 200(HOM-NZ), London, N18 1ZF
> > > > > British Telecommunications plc
> > > > > Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
> > > > > Registered in England no. 1800000.
> > > > > This electronic message contains information from British
> > > >Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The
> > > >information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or
>entity
> > > >named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any
> > > >disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> > > >information
> > > >is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error,
> > > >please
> > > >notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above)
> > > >immediately.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:52 GMT-3