From: Bob Sinclair (bsin@cox.net)
Date: Sun May 09 2004 - 23:00:48 GMT-3
Ken,
Looks to me like they both specify the same rate, and I cannot see any
difference in practice. Probably a difference in Tc, however.
Bob Sinclair
CCIE #10427, CISSP, MCSE
www.netmasterclass.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Wygand" <KWygand@customonline.com>
To: "MMoniz" <ccie2002@tampabay.rr.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 9:15 PM
Subject: RE: Shaping to Peak?
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for your input. Let's use your case for example. What is the
_functional_ (or technical) difference between the way these two options
will shape?
>
> OPTION 1:
> policy-map POLICE
> class class-default
> shape average 1536000
>
> OPTION 2:
> policy-map POLICE
> class class-default
> shape peak 64000 6400 147200
>
> Thanks!
> Ken
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MMoniz [mailto:ccie2002@tampabay.rr.com]
> Sent: Sun 5/9/2004 8:18 PM
> To: Kenneth Wygand; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: Shaping to Peak?
>
>
>
> Kenneth, the only reason I can think of is that a lot of carriers never
enforce CIR!!
>
> For instance, I have had circuits that were TI access but suppose to be
like 256 CIR. By shaping to
> the max T1 you still have some control of throttling if congestion occurs.
>
> And at many times the traffic rate was well above the CIR but didn't get
throttled because we were shaping to
> much higher. It was only degraded when the carrier was oversubscribed or
degraded.
>
> Does that make sense? Kind of hard to explain
>
> mike
>
> BTW...QOS is one of my weakest subjects as is with lot's of other people.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Kenneth Wygand
> Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2004 7:58 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Shaping to Peak?
>
>
> Hey everyone,
>
> I'm really trying to understand all the options for QoS and I'm currently
looking at CB Shaping. Why would one want to shape to a _peak_ instead of
shaping to an _average_? I understand that shaping to a _peak_ will try to
send Bc + Be bits during every Tc, but doesn't that defeat the whole purpose
of shaping? Why not just shape to an _average_ but just make the Bc the
total combined value of the Bc and Be values used when shaping to a _peak_,
and not configure a Be?
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> TIA,
> Ken
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 11:12:08 GMT-3