From: Gyo (Gabor.Gyori@xxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jul 06 2002 - 18:46:24 GMT-3
The provided CBWFQ example means: in all circumstances provide 3 meg for dlsw
with lowest delay. If there is no other traffic, dlsw may consume the whole
bandwith.
This way we prioritize the DLSW.
The task mentioned is the opposite: never give more than 3 meg to dlsw, even
if no one else want to use the link at the moment.
The solution for that is CAR, the correct syntax was given by others.
Gabor
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John White [mailto:jan_white7@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 11:01 PM
> To: dwclemons@msn.com
> Cc: elpingu@acedsl.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Dlsw queueing methods
>
>
> 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