RE: LLQ/CBWFQ w/ FRTS vs.

From: jean.paul.baaklini@accenture.com
Date: Wed Sep 15 2004 - 05:29:21 GMT-3


That's what I thought too.

With the new way (MQC), you would match rtp in a class-map and use the
priority keyword in the policy-map to reserve bandwidth...

Anyone confirms?

Cheers,
JP

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
gladston@br.ibm.com
Sent: 14 September 2004 22:24
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: LLQ/CBWFQ w/ FRTS vs.

=========
quoted
it states that "ip rtp priority"
and LLQ/CBWFQ can be used together.
=========

As I undertand it, it is more like "ip rtp priority" would be an "old
style".

Hope you get more feedback to clarify it.



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 15:00:42 GMT-3