From: Malcolm Stewart (malcolmstewart@dodo.com.au)
Date: Thu Aug 19 2004 - 00:28:51 GMT-3
Tomikawa,
If you are not using delay sensitive traffic like VOIP, then i see no need
for changing this feature specifcally. If you are prioritising voice then it
is essential to lower the tx-ring-limit, this in affect lowers the the q
depth of the physical interface queue which acts like a FIFO queue ( Not
good for voice ). So by lowering this value, limits the FIFO queuing on the
physical interface and allows the CBWFQ's to Q traffic and prioritise voice
correctly without Voice packets being held up on the physical interface FIFO
queue.
Regards
Malcolm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tomikawa" <h-tomikawa@syscomusa.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 6:11 AM
Subject: OT but "tx-ring-limit" do I need for QOS?
> Hello, all.
>
> First of all, this is OT, but it is real network situation.
>
> I have configured QOS (CBWFQ) in ATM interface.
> Some sub-interface have "vbr-nrt 128 128 1" that is slow link.
>
> I have not configured "tx-ring-limit" and it is using default value.
> ( I believe particle is 40).
> The point is that there is no voice traffic, and LLQ is not configured.
> It is just using CBWFQ for packets from specific server and it is using
> "bandwidth" for policy-map.
>
> Besides, this specific traffice is TCP, so that TCP:windows algorithm
> will automatically
> adjust packet flow.
>
> My question is should I still enable "tx-ring-limit" command to change
> smaller number? or it isn't necessary?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 : Fri Sep 03 2004 - 07:02:46 GMT-3