From: John White (jan_white7@xxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jul 06 2002 - 18:01:17 GMT-3
According to theory , this should work too. Priority queue uses tail
drops to keep proper bandwith. But on the other hand, isn't LLQ used only
when there is congestion?I'm not sure
In normal conditions I think we should use CAR
Anybody?
>From: "dwclemons" <dwclemons@msn.com>
>Reply-To: "dwclemons" <dwclemons@msn.com>
>To: "elping" <elpingu@acedsl.com>, "John White" <jan_white7@hotmail.com>
>CC: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: Re: Dlsw queueing methods
>Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 16:27:06 -0400
>
>How about this config on a e0 10 Meg interface interface
>
>policy-map dlsw
> class cisco
> priority 3000
>
>class-map cisco
> match access-group 101
>
>
>access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 2065
>
>int e0
>service-policy output dlsw
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "elping" <elpingu@acedsl.com>
>To: "John White" <jan_white7@hotmail.com>
>Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 3:49 PM
>Subject: Re: Dlsw queueing methods
>
>
> > ok...le me give it a shot.....please correct any mistakes
> > .
> > since the question asks allow dlsw 30% only lets's use CAR..
> > total speed 10megbits
> > allow 3mbits for dlsw
> >
> > normal burst= CIR [bps] * (1 byte)/(8 bits) * 1.5 seconds
> > settting normal burst = BE disables bursting
> >
> > interface FastEthernet0/0
> > ip address 192.168.1.34 255.255.255.255
> > rate-limit output access-group 101 3000000 375000 375000 conform-action
> > continue exceed-action drop
> > duplex half
> > speed 10
> >
> > access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq 2065
> >
> >
> > John White wrote:
> >
> > > That's fine. But which queueing method would you use, to restirict
>dlsw
>to
> > > certain maximum bandwith? Is it custom queueing or policing-CAR. I'm
>really
> > > confused on issue
> > > Jan
> > >
> > > >From: elping <elpingu@acedsl.com>
> > > >Reply-To: elping <elpingu@acedsl.com>
> > > >To: John White <jan_white7@hotmail.com>
> > > >CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > >Subject: Re: Dlsw queueing methods
> > > >Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 11:56:41 -0400
> > > >
> > > >I was confused by this as well:
> > > >to make it simple use
> > > >
> > > >only spcify port 2065 for dlsw...
> > > >
> > > >the other ports are used if you used priority
> > > >
> > > >John White wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > I'm new to the group, so I started browsing archives recently.
>There
>is
> > > >a
> > > > > lot good stuff there.Some questions though seems to never recive
> > > >answers.I
> > > > > guess people use their privite e-mail accounts, instead of list.I
>notice
> > > >,
> > > > > that in May 2002 there was discusion going on regarding bandwith
> > > >allocation
> > > > > for DLSw . The question was which method to use in order to
>allocate
> > > >DlSw no
> > > > > more than 30% of interface bandwith. (token or ehternet). Is it
>custom
> > > > > queueing or CAR or CBWFQ?.Does it require to specify all 4 ports
>for
> > > >traffic
> > > > > or not (2065, 1981,1982,1983)
> > > > > Thanks in advance
> > > > > Jan
> > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:20 GMT-3