From: Narvaez, Pablo (Pablo.Narvaez@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jul 06 2002 - 18:07:10 GMT-3
ummmm isn't LLQ an only-reservation bandwidth mechanisim? like RSVP or CBWFQ? f
rom your config I think LLQ just reserves 3000k of the avaibale bandwith; so, D
LSw will always have, at least, 3000k for transmission and in the event DLSw wa
nts to transmit over 3000k will do it if there's more bandwith available.
The only way to do this is with CAR I believe.
Please correct me if wrong, and the question will be: Is LLQ also a policier?
cheers,
hockito
-----Original Message-----
From: elping [mailto:elpingu@acedsl.com]
Sent: Sabado, 06 de Julio de 2002 03:42 p.m.
To: dwclemons
Cc: John White; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Dlsw queueing methods
that is ever sweeter ....never played with this before....
from my quick read sound like it would do the job.....
dwclemons wrote:
> 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