From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Apr 28 2004 - 09:24:24 GMT-3
Hi guys,
I want to apply custom (or priority) queueing to a multipoint F/R interface
that has FRTS enabled where each dlci treats the traffic the same way. Are
the 2 configs below legal and equivalent?
Config 1:
priority-list 1 prot ip high <traffic type>
priority-list 1 prot ip normal <traffic type>
priority-list 1 default low
int s0
ip addr x.x.x.x
encap frame-relay
frame-relay traffic-shaping
frame-relay class settings
priority-group 1
fram map ip x.x.x.x <dlci> broad
fram map ip x.x.x.x <dlci> broad
map-class frame-relay settings
frame-relay cir 128000
frame-relay bc 16000
frame-relay adaptive-shaping becn
Config 2:
priority-list 1 prot ip high <traffic type>
priority-list 1 prot ip normal <traffic type>
priority-list 1 default low
int s0
ip addr x.x.x.x
encap frame-relay
frame-relay traffic-shaping
frame-relay class settings
fram map ip x.x.x.x <dlci> broad
fram map ip x.x.x.x <dlci> broad
map-class frame-relay settings
frame-relay cir 128000
frame-relay bc 16000
frame-relay adaptive-shaping becn
frame-relay priority-group 1
Notice that the only difference between the 2 configs is that in the 2nd
config, the priority-group 1 is inside the frame-relay map-class whereas in
the 1st config, the priority-group 1 is just applied to the main interface.
So, are both these config's legal and exactly equivalent in what they do?
Also, can I safely assume that's what true for priority-group is also true for
custom-queues?
Thanks in advanced, Tim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon May 03 2004 - 19:48:57 GMT-3