From: Marvin Greenlee (marvingreenlee@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Mar 09 2004 - 04:56:07 GMT-3
For assigned maximum bandwidth, you can use the police
command.
Policy-map GURANTEED
class QOS
police 256000 8000 exceed-action drop
Port numbers will give you more granularity for the
traffic you are limiting.
Assuming that you want the QoS for the link between
the server and the clients, you will need to configure
it on both sides.
Sincerely,
Marvin Greenlee
Network Learning, Inc
Senior Technical Advisor
--- Ahmed Mustafa <ahmed.mustafa@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> I am working on a real scenerio where specfically
> asked for assigned bandwidth
> 256K for ip address 172.16.10.1 (Running as an
> application server) regardless
> of congestion.
>
> If I configure CBWFQ where I can assign bandwidth:
>
> Router (Where Application Server)
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> access-list 100 permit ip host 172.16.10.1 any
>
> class-map QOS
> match access-group 100
>
> Policy-map GURANTEED
> class QOS
> bandwidth 256
>
> int s0/0:0
> service-policy output GURANTEED.
>
>
>
> Remote Router (Where hosts are)
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> access-list 100 permit ip any host 172.16.10.1
>
> class-map QOS
> match access-group 100
>
> Policy-map GURANTEED
> class QOS
> bandwidth 256
>
> int s0/0:0
> service-policy output GURANTEED.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> The above QOS only occurs incase of congestion.
>
> What QOS can be configured regardless of
> congestion, and always gurantee
> bandwidth 256KB only. When I Say 256KB only I mean
> it shouldn't exceed 256KB
> regardless of bandwidth availble or not.
>
>
> In access-list, will port numbers make any huge
> difference. It's an old
> application and port# is not known unless we through
> sniffer.
>
>
> Should QOS configurations apply both ways as I am
> mentioning above, or on a
> router only where the application server is.
>
> Thanks
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 08:15:16 GMT-3