From: Brian McGahan (bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Thu Feb 19 2004 - 13:46:17 GMT-3
Kamiel,
Yes these statements are not conflicting. When you apply the
shaping/rate-limit, Bc and Be are full. This is because nothing has been
sent (i.e. Bc has not been consistently used). Therefore your allotment is
full. From that point on if Bc is consistently used it may be permissible
that there is never a case to burst in excess.
HTH,
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> braet_kamiel@nl.ibm.com
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 9:12 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: RE: Limiting ICMP using CAR
>
> Brian,
> I think your post is very clear and correct except for the explaination of
> the Be.
> The statement that if Bc is consistently used you will never be able to
> burst in excess (Be) is not entirely correct. This is because the initial
> both Be and Bc tokens are put into the bucket, as stated in DQoS book page
> 345:
> "To understand how CAR works is to understand how the buckets are filled
> and drained. Initially, CAR fills Bucket1 with Bc tokens, and Bucket2 with
> Be tokens."
>
> Gr. Kamiel Braet
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
> http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Mar 05 2004 - 07:13:51 GMT-3