From: gladston@br.ibm.com
Date: Mon Apr 26 2004 - 14:53:31 GMT-3
Any help to understand the difference of implementing CBWFQ on the physical interface and on the map-class?
The goal is to reserve 50% of the bandwidth for FTP traffic traversing the serial 0/0.
Router R1 is connected to R2 and R3 using serial 0/0 (frame-relay encapsulation)
This is the first approach I tried:
class-map match-all FTP
match access-group 177
!
policy-map QOS
class FTP
bandwidth percent 25
!
interface Serial0/0
ip address 142.20.125.5 255.255.255.0
encapsulation frame-relay
service-policy output QOS
frame-relay map ip 142.20.125.1 12 broadcast
frame-relay map ip 142.20.125.2 13 broadcast
!
access-list 177 permit tcp any any eq ftp
access-list 177 permit tcp any any eq ftp-data
And this is the second:
class-map match-all FTP
match access-group 177
!
policy-map QOS
class FTP
bandwidth percent 50
!
interface Serial0/0
ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
encapsulation frame-relay
frame-relay traffic-shaping
frame-relay map ip 1.1.1.2 12 broadcast
frame-relay map ip 1.1.1.3 13 broadcast
!
frame-relay interface-dlci 12
class QoS
frame-relay interface-dlci 13
class QoS
!
map-class frame-relay QoS
service-policy output QOS
!
access-list 177 permit tcp any any eq ftp
access-list 177 permit tcp any any eq ftp-data
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 03 2004 - 19:48:55 GMT-3