From: Brian Dennis (brian@labforge.com)
Date: Wed Jun 18 2003 - 02:15:07 GMT-3
Did you mean to send this to someone else? I was just commenting on the
default serial interface bandwidth.
Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
-----Original Message-----
From: Nguyen Hoang Long [mailto:ng-hlong@hn.vnn.vn]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 10:09 PM
To: Brian Dennis; 'Scott Morris'; ZaferP@koc.net; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Cc: GokhanS@koc.net
Subject: Re: CBWFQ-FRTS-RSVP
But Cisco does not say so, here the link:
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/105/cbwfq_frpvs.html#configurationnotes
<quote>
a.. When the bandwidth and priority commands calculate the total amount
of
bandwidth available on an entity, the following guidelines are invoked
when
the entity is a shaped Frame Relay permanent virtual circuit (PVC):
a.. If a Minimum Acceptable Committed Information Rate (minCIR) is not
configured, the CIR is divided by two.
b.. If a minCIR is configured, the minCIR setting is used in the
calculation.
c.. The full bandwidth from the above rate can be assigned to
bandwidth
and priority classes. Thus, the max-reserved-bandwidth command is not
supported on Frame Relay PVCs, although you should take care to ensure
that
the amount of bandwidth configured is large enough to also accommodate
Layer
2 overhead. See What Bytes Are Counted by IP to ATM CoS Queueing?.
a.. Avoid setting the CIR or minCIR at the access rate. Otherwise, you
may
see output queues building up and causing big delays in CBWFQ classes.
The
reason is that the shape rate does not take into account the overhead
bytes
of the flag and Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC) fields, so shaping at line
rate is actually oversubscribing and will cause interface congestion.
There
really is no reason to shape at the access rate. You should always
traffic
shape at 95 percent of the access rate or, more generally, the aggregate
shaped rate should always be 95 percent below the access rate.
<quote>
I have tested and it works as documented, do you have any comment on
that?
Thanks,
Long
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Dennis" <brian@labforge.com>
To: "'Scott Morris'" <swm@emanon.com>; <ZaferP@koc.net>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Cc: <GokhanS@koc.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 2:30 AM
Subject: RE: CBWFQ-FRTS-RSVP
> As a side note "low speed" physical interfaces default to 128k.
>
> Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> Scott Morris
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 4:59 AM
> To: ZaferP@koc.net; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Cc: GokhanS@koc.net
> Subject: RE: CBWFQ-FRTS-RSVP
>
> The default reservable bandwidth is 75% of the presumed link
bandwidth,
> whatever that may be. If you do a show interface, you can figure that
> part out. Physical serial interfaces, the default assumed bandwidth
is
> 1.544M. On sub-interfaces, it actually varies per IOS train on what
the
> default is, so just do a 'show interface' to see that.
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> ZaferP@koc.net
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 4:07 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Cc: GokhanS@koc.net
> Subject: CBWFQ-FRTS-RSVP
>
>
> Simple and straight question:
>
> When using FRTS with CBWFQ or RSVP, is the reservable bandwith is
>
> a) % 75 of CIR
> b) %75 of MINCIR
> c) CIR
> d) MINCIR
> e) None of the above
>
> Plese respond with an offical link if possible not just guessing.
>
> Regards
>
> Zafer
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jul 04 2003 - 11:11:00 GMT-3