RE: CBWFQ/FRTS

From: JC Cham (jccham@us.cnlink.net)
Date: Fri Jun 20 2003 - 18:18:17 GMT-3

i don't think max-reserved-bandwidth is applicable for traffic shaping. for cbwfq , yes

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of Ram Shummoogum
Sent: 2003e946f20f% 13:28
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: CBWFQ/FRTS

repost with subject header:

Hi everyone:

My questions are :
 Do I need "max-reserved-bandwidth 100" if I use traffic shaping as shown
below.
Should the mincir be equal to 112000? ( 224000/2 by default).
I will get an error if the mincir is less than 112000 (40 + 30 + 30 + 12).

Can I bypass the traffic shaping completely and use the service-policy
output on interface ser0/0 + "max-reserved-bandwidth 100" .

Thanks.

class-map match-all icmp
  match protocol icmp
class-map match-all smtp
  match protocol smtp
class-map match-all ftp
  match protocol ftp
!
!
policy-map test
  class icmp
   bandwidth 40
  class ftp
   bandwidth 30
  class smtp
   bandwidth 30
  class class-default
   bandwidth 12

interface Serial0/0
 bandwidth 112
 ip address 144.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
 encapsulation frame-relay
 load-interval 30
 "max-reserved-bandwidth 100"
 no fair-queue
 frame-relay class rambo
 frame-relay traffic-shaping
 frame-relay map ip 144.1.1.2 305 broadcast
 frame-relay map ip 144.1.1.1 305

map-class frame-relay rambo
 frame-relay cir 224000
 frame-relay adaptive-shaping becn

RAM

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jul 04 2003 - 11:11:04 GMT-3