From: Phuong (kieu@hn.vnn.vn)
Date: Wed Aug 20 2003 - 18:01:10 GMT-3
The problem is tail drop (it default), all (TCP) traffic are randomly
dropped prior to periods of high congestion -> TCP will decrease its
transmission rate.
By dropping low priority traffic instead of all of them, we will solve
this problem.
IN this case, Wred should be enable to drop FTP traffic and users will
be happy with the quick browser ;-)
Phuong
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Larry Roberts
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 3:43 AM
To: MMoniz; James Stewart; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: QoS on Router or Switch
That is why I recommended rate-limiting the FTP traffic instead. :-)
-Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "MMoniz" <ccie2002@tampabay.rr.com>
To: "Larry Roberts" <larryr@netbeam.net>; "James Stewart"
<j_t_s_stewart@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 1:39 PM
Subject: RE: QoS on Router or Switch
> Jim,
>
> To me this sounds more like a WCCP solution. Since the link isn't
congested
> QOS will not really come into play, except of course for like
bandwidth
> amounts and such.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Larry Roberts
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 3:01 PM
> To: James Stewart; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: QoS on Router or Switch
>
>
> James,
>
> QoS is much easier to implement on a router as opposed to a switch. I
would
> also look at rate-limiting the FTP traffic so that it can only use up
a
> certain percentage of the bandwidth. Rate-limiting can be done either
> inbound or outbound on the router, shaping can only be done outbound.
>
> HTH,
> Larry Roberts
> CCIE #7886 (R&S / Security)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Stewart" <j_t_s_stewart@hotmail.com>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 11:52 AM
> Subject: QoS on Router or Switch
>
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Not sure where to apply the QoS.
> >
> > Users on a LAN on R1 complain that www access is slow.
> > R1 is connected to the internet via a FR link to R2, which is not
> congested.
> > Users on the LAN are also backing up several servers using FTP over
the
> > same link.
> >
> > Should the QoS giving priority to www over ftp be implemented on the
3550
> > switch egress port, ingress port of R1 or the egress of R1?
> >
> > Any ideas?
> >
> > Thanks Jim
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today!
> > http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 02 2003 - 18:54:04 GMT-3