From: Jai Prakash Shukla (jshukla@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon May 13 2002 - 12:17:44 GMT-3
CBWFQ will guarantee for minimum bandwidth.
CAR (Rate-limit) will limit the traffic for upper bound; CAR has no buffer
so it will not smoothen out the traffic.
Traffic Shaping will shape for max value, this has buffer as compared to
CAR.
So I think for this problem you might have to use CBWFQ and TS.
If it is FRTS then you have mincir where traffic will not be throttled below
mincir but again with congestion there is no guarantee.
I am sure experts will give their opinion if I am not correct.
JP
-----Original Message-----
From: Kirby, Ron [mailto:Ron.Kirby@getronics.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 6:33 AM
To: Jai Prakash Shukla; Michael Kilpatrick; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Generic Traffic Shaping - Fatkid Lab #461
I thought CBWFQ would allow for a minimum BW, but can it allow for a
maximum? I am just beginning my studies into QOS, so let me know if my
thought process is off....But, seems to me that with traffic shaping you can
smooth the traffic flow to the levels you have configured, and as long as
the bandwidth is there, the traffic will conform. But what if the line is
saturated? Does traffic shaping also ensure a minimum level of service is
achieved?
How about CAR? Couldn't I also setup an access list with the telnet traffic
specified, then use CAR to rate-limit traffic for that access-group, and
allow everything else. And more specifically, while the FATKID lab has
router 3 setup with a single serial link, wouldn't an inbound CAR config on
the Token-ring segment provide the best way to ensure that the ring's telnet
traffic never exceeds the specified limit?
Ron
-----Original Message-----
From: Jai Prakash Shukla [mailto:jshukla@cisco.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 11:06 PM
To: Michael Kilpatrick; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Generic Traffic Shaping - Fatkid Lab #461
For minimum guarantee for bandwidth do you have to use CBWFQ???
Just a thought.
JP
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Michael Kilpatrick
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2002 5:43 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Generic Traffic Shaping - Fatkid Lab #461
In Fatkid Lab #461, can someone please verify the given solution for item
#5.
Item #5 says:
5. Configure R3 so that users on the Token Ring segment get at least 16K of
bandwidth, but not more than 32K, for their telnet traffic, and the
remaining
bandwidth for everything else.
And the given solution is:
interface Serial0
traffic-shape group 101 16000 32000 32000 1000
access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq telnet
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that this does nothing
to
guarantee users get at least 16K of bandwidth. In addition, this
traffic-shape
command would allow bursts up to the 64k access-rate and would apply a tc
interval of 2 seconds which would be very inefficient.
I think the solution should read:
interface Serial 0
custom-queue-list 1
traffic-shape group 101 32000 4000 0
access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq telnet
queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 tcp telnet
queue-list 1 default 2
queue-list 1 queue 1 byte-count 100
queue-list 1 queue 2 byte-count 300
Can someone please verify?
Thanks alot! Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:58:55 GMT-3