From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Apr 22 2004 - 12:43:16 GMT-3
Thank you, William. Had it not been for your post, I definately would have
missed that.
My brain is so cluttered with info, it's hard to important lilttle details
like that. I'm very glad you pointed that out.
Thanks, Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Chen" <kwchen@netvigator.com>
To: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>; "Yasser Abdullah"
<yasser@alharbitelecom.com>; "'Ahmed Mustafa'"
<ahmed.mustafa@sbcglobal.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: mls command
> Hi,
>
> Just to remind that if you enable "mls qos", the default is the QOS
> marking of the packets reveived by every interface is untrust and thus all
> the packets will override to best-effort.
>
> However, if the "mls qos" is not enabled, switch will forward the
packet
> with the QOS marking unchange.
>
> Therefore, if you set IP Precedence/DSCP in an outgoing interface of
> Router A connected to Catalyst 3550, and expect the receiving Router B to
> setup policy according to the packets marking. If you turn on "mls qos" in
> the Catalyst 3550 but forgot to set the port connected to Router A to
trust
> the marking, the default is all the packets will be override to
best-effort
> (DSCP=0, IP Precedence=0)!
>
> Best Regards,
> William Chen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
> To: "Yasser Abdullah" <yasser@alharbitelecom.com>; "'Ahmed Mustafa'"
> <ahmed.mustafa@sbcglobal.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 7:44 PM
> Subject: Re: mls command
>
>
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > I'm considering just adding the "mls qos" to both Cat's when I take the
> lab.
> >
> > Here's my reasoning.
> >
> > There might be certain features besides the obvious QoS stuff that
require
> > this command in order to work properly, for example, certain types of
> > access-lists that need to examine QoS data inside the layer 3 portion of
> the
> > packet.
> >
> > There's no downside to enabling "mls qos" unless explicitly forbidden.
> >
> > Does anybody think this is a bad idea? If so, why?
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Yasser Abdullah" <yasser@alharbitelecom.com>
> > To: "'Ahmed Mustafa'" <ahmed.mustafa@sbcglobal.net>;
> > <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 2:19 AM
> > Subject: RE: mls command
> >
> >
> > > As per the command reference guide, 'mls qos' is recommended before
> > > enabling voice vlan. Until you enter the mls qos command, QOS
processing
> > > is disabled and all CoS values will be mapped to the same queue (1).
> > >
> > > Brgds,
> > >
> > > Yasser
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> > > Ahmed Mustafa
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 8:32 AM
> > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: mls command
> > >
> > > Is command "MLS QOS" required if the port is configured only for
802.1P
> > >
> > > For example,
> > >
> > > interface fastethernet 0/5
> > > switchport voice vlan dot1p
> > >
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 03 2004 - 19:48:52 GMT-3