From: Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE) (dmitry_volkov@ca.ml.com)
Date: Sat Sep 14 2002 - 21:01:37 GMT-3
yes Nick,
Agree, probably it would be cleaner not to put 1981-83.
Well, will it be correct method to put TCP 2067 as well by either way ?
for normal dlsw (without priority) I would configure:
queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 tcp 2065
queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 tcp 2067
Dmitry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nick Shah [mailto:nshah@connect.com.au]
> Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 6:25 PM
> To: warren perrett; dmitry_volkov@ca.ml.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: queue list for DLSW (search - just GREAT !!!)
>
>
>
> * priority dlsw uses 1981, 1982, 1983, 2065, so either
> Dmitry's method or
> Warren's method can be implemented to include them
>
> * A correct method is 'not' to use 1981, 1982, 1983 in
> 'non-priority' DLSW,
> imho, they will be considered wrong.
>
> rgds
> Nick
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: warren perrett <warrenperrett@hotmail.com>
> To: <dmitry_volkov@ca.ml.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 10:22 PM
> Subject: Re: queue list for DLSW (search - just GREAT !!!)
>
>
> > There seems to be two ways to tie the ports to a queue the
> way you have
> > below or :
> >
> >
> >
> > (config)#queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 tcp 2065
> >
> > (config)#queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 tcp 2067
> >
> > Have a look at the text when you issue a ? after the ip 1 see below
> >
> > (config)#queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 ?
> >
> >
> >
> > tcp Prioritize TCP packets 'to' or 'from' the specified port
> >
> > udp Prioritize UDP packets 'to' or 'from' the specified port
> >
> > As it says here 'to' or 'from' the port, I think either way
> is valid , as
> > usual the qestion is which way is the cisco way :)
> >
> > My SNA notes refer to the method above
> >
> > I would agree your ACL covers all DLSW ports inc 1981,1982,
> and 1983 if
> > you issuse the priority command. If you don't issue the
> priority command
> > only 2065 is used , but should you inc 1981,1982,1983 for
> completeness ?
> >
> > On one hand it would do no harm but on the other the
> examiners may feel
> > your just guessing . What should you do ? I don't know I'm afraid.
> >
> > In that instance I would have to ask the proctor and
> explain my thoughts.
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE)" >Reply-To: "Volkov, Dmitry
> > (Toronto - BCE)" >To: "'ccielab@groupstudy.com'" >Subject:
> queue list for
> > DLSW (search - just GREAT !!!) >Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002
> 17:33:03 -0400 >
> > >Some time ago Sasa Milic posted about "protocol dlsw" in
> "queue-list 1
> > >protocol dlsw"
> > >http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200205/msg01804.html
> > >"protocol dlsw" can be used only with FST encapsulation. -
> Can somebody
> > else >confirm that ?! >If you use TCP, then you have to use
> access-list
> > to identify port(s) > >What is the common opinion with you:
> > >Will this
> > access list cover all TCP DLSW (including priority) ? " >
> >access-list
> > 100 permit tcp any eq 2065 any >access-list 100 permit tcp
> any any eq
> > 2065 >access-list 100 permit tcp any any eq 2067
> >access-list 100 permit
> > tcp any any eq 1981 >access-list 100 permit tcp any any eq 1982
> > >access-list 100 permit tcp any any eq 1983 > >Thanks, > >Dmitry
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
> > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:43:52 GMT-3