From: Edwards, Andrew M (andrew.m.edwards@boeing.com)
Date: Tue Mar 09 2004 - 11:54:11 GMT-3
Shaping, in my mind, would be the better choice. Of course, if you have a specific bandwidth requirement that MUST be ensured, I would go with RSVP.
That way you know the bandwidth is there...
Another option would be custom que lists where you can use bandwidth as a consideration for the link. But if its end to end I would use RSVP.
andy
-----Original Message-----
From: alsontra@hotmail.com [mailto:alsontra@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 2:10 AM
To: Marvin Greenlee; Ahmed Mustafa
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: QOS for real scenerio
Would you want police or shape? Although policing would keep your servers utilization 256k, wouldn't shaping provide you with smoother traffic patterns, in addition to less packet loss??? Rookie question, I know. :-)
Alsontra
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marvin Greenlee" <marvingreenlee@yahoo.com>
To: "Ahmed Mustafa" <ahmed.mustafa@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 11:56 PM
Subject: Re: QOS for real scenerio
> 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Search - Find what youre looking for faster
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 : Thu Apr 01 2004 - 08:15:16 GMT-3