From: Richard Dumoulin (richard.dumoulin@vanco.es)
Date: Tue May 04 2004 - 18:52:06 GMT-3
Well, this is about QOS boundaries and trusting or not trusting the tags. I
first saw this topic when studying QOS on the 3550,
--Richard
-----Original Message-----
From: Lupi, Guy [mailto:Guy.Lupi@eurekanetworks.net]
Sent: martes, 04 de mayo de 2004 22:50
To: 'Kenneth Wygand'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Best Effort Definition
I typically mark all traffic with an appropriate value at the ingress point,
this way there is no possibility of someone marking their traffic and
inadvertently receiving a class of service that they have not subscribed
for. For example, if I only had 2 classes of service, platinum and best
effort, I would mark platinum at the ingress with the appropriate DSCP and
mark all other traffic 0 or some other appropriate value.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Wygand [mailto:KWygand@customonline.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 4:32 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Best Effort Definition
Hello Group,
I think I know the answer to this one but I just want to get some more
opinions...
If I am performing QoS (whether it be CoS, IP Precedence, ToS Bits, or
DSCP), supposed I would like to "mark all traffic going from router A to
router B as IP Precedence 6 while other traffic receiving "best effort"
service"... obviously through some kind of classification, marking and
queuing I would make sure all traffic from router A to router B receives the
type of service it requires. However, what about all other traffic? When
requesting that other traffic gets "best effort", should one leave the QoS
markings as-is, or actually remark them back to all 0's?
Thanks in advance,
Kenneth E. Wygand
Systems Engineer, Project Services
CISSP #37102, CCNP, CCDP, ACSP, Cisco IPT Design Specialist, MCP, CNA,
Network+, A+
Custom Computer Specialists, Inc.
"I am not really smart. I just stick with problems longer." -Albert Einstein
Custom Computer Specialists, Inc.
"Celebrating 25 Years of Excellence"
[GroupStudy removed an attachment of type image/gif which had a name of
image001.gif]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 11:12:04 GMT-3