From: marvin greenlee (marvin@ccbootcamp.com)
Date: Wed Jan 12 2005 - 20:31:25 GMT-3
Your policy appears to be missing the FTP data, unless you also configured a
port map for that. 'ip nbar port-map ftp tcp 20 21'
In my opinion, anyone that doesn't know the default byte count for custom
queueing should not be attempting the lab.
The queue sizes need to be included to accurately reflect the traffic
ratios. Are you saying that if the FTP and the telnet queues had the
standard 1500 bytes, that you would just assign 'bandwidth remaining percent
100' to the www queue?
Depending on how picky the person grading the section was, they may also
want to see "queue-limit 20" for the other classes.
- Marvin Greenlee, CCIE#12237, CCSI# 30483
Network Learning Inc
marvin@ccbootcamp.com
www.ccbootcamp.com (Cisco Training)
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
ccie2be
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 2:58 PM
To: Group Study
Subject: IEWB lab 15 - QoS [bcc][faked-from]
Importance: Low
Hi guys,
Problem:
Convert the legacy custom queue config to MQC.
queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 tcp www
queue-list 1 protocol ip 2 tcp ftp
queue-list 1 protocol ip 2 tcp ftp-data
queue-list 1 protocol ip 3 tcp telnet
queue-list 1 default 4
queue-list 1 queue 1 byte-count 5000 limit 30
queue-list 1 queue 2 byte-count 3000
queue-list 1 queue 3 byte-count 500
My Solution was:
class-map match-all TELNET
match protocol telnet
class-map match-all FTP
match protocol ftp
class-map match-all WWW
match protocol http
!
policy-map MQC
class WWW
bandwidth remaining percent 58
queue-limit 30
class FTP
bandwidth remaining percent 35
class TELNET
bandwidth remaining percent 6
Question:
Is my solution which is different from that shown in the IE SG equally
correct?
I think my solution is better and simpler, assuming it's correct, because it
doesn't require
you to know that, by default, custom queueing reserves 1500 Bps for the
default queue and it doesn't require
you to change the max-reserved-bandwidth on the output interface.
What do you guys think?
Tim
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 02 2005 - 22:10:22 GMT-3