From: Curtis Phillips (cphillips@xxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Mon May 13 2002 - 13:16:12 GMT-3
min-cir is typically set to the guaranteed rate promised by the frame
provider. This is the only guaranteee you will get in terms of available
bandwidth. If this is not set with traffic-shaping parameters, it defaults
to 1/2 of the CIR.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jai Prakash Shukla" <jshukla@cisco.com>
To: "Kirby, Ron" <Ron.Kirby@getronics.com>; "Michael Kilpatrick"
<mjkilpat@yahoo.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 11:17 AM
Subject: RE: Generic Traffic Shaping - Fatkid Lab #461
> 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