From: dwclemons (dwclemons@xxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jul 06 2002 - 18:20:14 GMT-3
After further review and according to this link
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120
t/120t7/pqcbwfq.htm
LLQ will not work, as you stated it will go above 3000 K if no congestion
is experienced.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Narvaez, Pablo" <Pablo.Narvaez@getronics.com>
To: "elping" <elpingu@acedsl.com>; "dwclemons" <dwclemons@msn.com>
Cc: "John White" <jan_white7@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 5:07 PM
Subject: RE: Dlsw queueing methods
> ummmm isn't LLQ an only-reservation bandwidth mechanisim? like RSVP or
> CBWFQ? from your config I think LLQ just reserves 3000k of the avaibale
> bandwith; so, DLSw will always have, at least, 3000k for transmission and
in
> the event DLSw wants 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