From: Carlos G Mendioroz (tron@huapi.ba.ar)
Date: Tue Sep 24 2002 - 19:07:15 GMT-3
This is mainly regarding Elping comment, that CBWFQ is not an option
because
this only works on congested links.
To begin with, this is right, as it is also the case with custom
queuing.
All "queuing" schemes take on only on congested links.
There is though a problem on how to divide "exactly" if you only have
traffic for one of the classes, so I would assume (after consultation
with the proctor at hand :-) that congestion is indeed there when you
apply
the criteria.
Also the "exactly" should take into account control traffic... beware.
As for CAR, that would be rate limit. Depending on the wording, rate
limiting
to half the available bandwidth may be the only option.
As for priority, I don't see how this would affect the fairness
(exact-ness ?)
of the division. Priority would put half the traffic on top of the rest
in
an unfair queue service policy...
stephen.paynter@bt.com wrote:
>
> if you want to divide equally use the priority keyword instead of bandwidth
> percent 50.
>
> ie on ethernet priority 5000
>
> if you use bandwidth percent that is classed as minimum, priority is classed
> as maximum
>
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/qos_
> r/qrdcmd3.htm#1036072
>
> Stephen Paynter CCIE #10206
> Customer Engineer
> BT Ignite- Customer Engineering Unit, National Solutions
> T: +44 (0)1422 338881 F: +44 (0)1422 316637 M: +44 (0)7974 087949
> e-mail: stephen.paynter@bt.com
> pp HW A170, PO Box 200(HOM-NZ), London, N18 1ZF
> > British Telecommunications plc
> > Registered office: 81 Newgate Street London EC1A 7AJ
> > Registered in England no. 1800000.
> > This electronic message contains information from British
> Telecommunications plc which may be privileged or confidential. The
> information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) or entity
> named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any
> disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information
> is prohibited. If you have received this electronic message in error, please
> notify us by telephone or email (to the numbers or address above)
> immediately
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: elping [mailto:elpingu@acedsl.com]
> Sent: 24 September 2002 03:18
> To: Adam Crisp
> Cc: Ccielab
> Subject: Re: CB WFQ
>
> my friend
> CB-WFQ will not do the trick
>
> i though the same thing a while back ...here is the scoop on CB-WFQ.
> this method will only gurantee the allocated bandwithd during congestion
> .
>
> now the question says ..
> dived traffic exactly .....then CB-WFQ will not do the trick..
>
> try custom queeing ..or CAR
>
> Elping
> .
>
> Adam Crisp wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > If asked to divide up bandwidth EXACTLY, can I use CB-WFQ, with the
> > "bandwidth percent XX" command?
> >
> > eg
> >
> > class-map match-all my_class_queue_ip
> > match access-group 25
> > !
> > policy-map my_policy
> > class my_class_queue_ip
> > bandwidth percent 50
> >
> > OR does this call for Custom Queuing?
> >
> > thanks in advance...
-- Carlos G Mendioroz <tron@huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI Argentina
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:44:02 GMT-3