From: Brian McGahan (bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Mon Sep 13 2004 - 14:46:16 GMT-3
JP,
The difference is whether or not you want per-VC queueing. When
you apply a service-policy without FRTS, there is one shared output
queue for the interface. When you enable FRTS, each VC is assigned a
separate shaping queue which in turn contends for the single output
queue for the interface. Check the following CCO document for more
info:
Configuring CBWFQ on Frame Relay PVCs:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk543/tk545/technologies_tech_note09186a
008009489a.shtml
HTH,
Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
Internetwork Expert, Inc.
http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> jean.paul.baaklini@accenture.com
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 10:32 AM
> To: ccie2be@nyc.rr.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: MQC QoS - map class or service-policy
>
> Tim,
>
> Thanks for your answer.
>
> I checked the link, it's really a great doc, it's the one I used when
I
> finally understood FRTS. I'm already an IE customer (WB, audioclass,
> racks, ...) :-)
>
> Having said that, I would like to bring to your attention that the
> document doesn't expose MQC.
>
> It's actually while working on the IE Workbook that I realised that
the
> service-policy command is sometimes applied directly to the interface
> and sometimes within a frame-relay class command.
>
> I wonder if there's any rule here, or if we just do as we like.
>
> Any idea?
>
> Thanks
>
> Cheers,
> JP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ccie2be [mailto:ccie2be@nyc.rr.com]
> Sent: 13 September 2004 16:13
> To: Baaklini, Jean paul; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: MQC QoS - map class or service-policy
>
> JeanPaul,
>
> In case you're not aware of this, your QoS policy can be applied at 3
> different levels in the context of frame relay.
>
> It can be applied at the main interface level in which case
> sub-interfaces
> will inherit the policy, it can be applied at the sub-interface level
in
>
> which case all dlci's associated with that sub-interface will inherit
> the
> poicy or it can be applied to an individual dlci.
>
> If different policies are applied at different levels, the policy at
the
>
> lower level overrides the policy applied at a higher level. For
example,
> a
> policy applied at the dlci level will override the policy at the
> sub-interface or main interface level.
>
> I learned all this from an excellent paper created by the 2 Brian's of
> Internetwork Expert. This paper is free to download from their site,
> www.internetworkexpert.com and I highly recommend you study that
> write-up
> very carefully. I don't remember it's exact title but look for their
> paper
> on Frame Relay Traffic Shaping.
>
> While you're there, you may want to also take a look at their other
> white
> papers all of which are excellent. And, you may want to download
their
> free
> sample lab from which I guarantee you will learn some new stuff.
>
> HTH, Tim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jean.paul.baaklini@accenture.com>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 7:07 AM
> Subject: MQC QoS - map class or service-policy
>
>
> > Hi Group,
> >
> > When configuring MQC QoS on routers meshed through a Frame-Relay
> > network.
> >
> > What's the difference between applying the service-policy command
> > directly to the interface or within a frame-relay class command?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > JP
> >
> >
> > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
> > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you
> have
> > received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and
delete
> the
> > original. Any other use of the email by you is prohibited.
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 15:00:42 GMT-3