From: Larry Roberts (larryr@netbeam.net)
Date: Wed Aug 20 2003 - 18:30:26 GMT-3
Brian,
I would use this more in a peer-to-peer file sharing scenario. If you are in
a scenario like some universities that cannot block Kazaa and the others
because the students will complain to the administration, I would simply
allow Kazaa, but only give them a certain percentage of bandwidth and never
anything about that. With this scenario the service works, but I never have
to worry about it taking up my whole pipe. This may or may not be James'
dilemma, but it is one option. The great thing about QoS on Cisco gear is
that you have multiple options to accomplish your goal, so either one of our
suggestions will work, James just needs to do some research and decide which
one is the best for his environment.
- Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian McGahan" <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com>
To: "'Larry Roberts'" <larryr@netbeam.net>; "'MMoniz'"
<ccie2002@tampabay.rr.com>; "'James Stewart'" <j_t_s_stewart@hotmail.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:19 PM
Subject: RE: QoS on Router or Switch
> Larry,
>
> If the link is not congested, then why limit the traffic?
>
> Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
> bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
>
> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> Toll Free: 877-334-8987
> Direct: 708-362-1418 (Outside the US and Canada)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Roberts [mailto:larryr@netbeam.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 4:15 PM
> To: Brian McGahan; 'MMoniz'; 'James Stewart'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: QoS on Router or Switch
>
> Brian,
>
> By rate-limiting the FTP traffic, I mean using CAR to limit FTP to say
> 512k.
> This action is in effect even when the link is not congested. I would
> recommend this or WRED as suggested by phong. I wouldn't recommend LLQ
> or PQ
> for web traffic as it is not interactive and doesn't care about dropped
> packets or delay and jitter.
>
> -Larry
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brian McGahan" <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com>
> To: "'Larry Roberts'" <larryr@netbeam.net>; "'MMoniz'"
> <ccie2002@tampabay.rr.com>; "'James Stewart'"
> <j_t_s_stewart@hotmail.com>;
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 2:03 PM
> Subject: RE: QoS on Router or Switch
>
>
> > Larry,
> >
> > Rate-limiting the FTP traffic would not have any effect since
> > the link is not congested. The only QoS mechanism that is constantly
> in
> > effect even when there is no congestion is the priority queue. The
> > priority queue includes the legacy priority queue, the low latency
> > queue, and RTP.
> >
> > Another consideration when trying to answer this question is the
> > direction of the FTP flow. Are clients receiving the FTP data or
> > sending the FTP data? If we assume that the clients are downloading
> FTP
> > data from the internet, and trying to access web services from the
> > internet, the most effective place to apply a priority queue would be
> > upstream, which in this case is R2.
> >
> > If you configure a low latency queue to prioritize web replies
> > (source of TCP 80 not destination) from servers on the internet, this
> > solution should be effective. You could also configure a legacy
> > priority queue on R2, however then you run the risk of completely
> > starving the FTP transfers if web replies are consistently in the
> higher
> > queues.
> >
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
> > bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
> >
> > Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> > http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> > Toll Free: 877-334-8987
> > Direct: 708-362-1418 (Outside the US and Canada)
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > Larry Roberts
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 3:43 PM
> > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > > > You are subscribed to the GroupStudy.com CCIE R&S Discussion
> Group.
> > > >
> > > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > > You are subscribed to the GroupStudy.com CCIE R&S Discussion Group.
> > >
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > > You are subscribed to the GroupStudy.com CCIE R&S Discussion Group.
> > >
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > You are subscribed to the GroupStudy.com CCIE R&S Discussion Group.
> >
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > You are subscribed to the GroupStudy.com CCIE R&S Discussion Group.
> >
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 02 2003 - 18:54:04 GMT-3