From: Carlos G Mendioroz (tron@huapi.ba.ar)
Date: Thu Sep 30 2004 - 16:12:25 GMT-3
MQC is the new way, PQ and CQ are the old way.
You can allmost do anything with MQC, all that CQ can do for sure.
You have only 2 1/2 levels of priority in MQC, and have 4 in PQ, so some
scenarios might still call for PQ.
On the lab context, do what you are more confortable with unless you are
asked for some particular way :-)
micsoniu@telus.net wrote:
> Din't see an answer to this question, and I wonder if there is a posting
> issue... For redundancy purposes, here I go again:
>
> The QoS mess in my head requires a clarification, and a smart advice would
> be appreciated:
>
>
>
> - Let's say that I have a task that requires only to assign a
> specific bandwidth percentage to various protocols "through" a specific
> interface. No mention about IN or OUT, never mind the type of queuing
> required.
>
> - The traffic pattern is not complicated enough to impose CQ
>
>
>
> This task can be accomplished using both CBWFQ and CQ.
>
>
>
> There are obvious differences between these two queuing techniques (i.e.
> dynamic vs. static/no adaptability to traffic conditions).
>
>
>
> I would be interested about some guidelines regarding which one should be
> chosen vs. the other one. (I assume that if VoIP is present, then the LLQ
> would be the winner and policy nesting would be involved )
>
>
>
> A QoS Guru is in great demand ..
>
>
>
> Much appreciated!
>
>
>
> Narcis
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
-- Carlos G Mendioroz <tron@huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI Argentina
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 15:00:51 GMT-3