From: simon hart (simon.hart@btinternet.com)
Date: Sun Feb 20 2005 - 10:12:44 GMT-3
Hi,
Just tested it, does not need traffic shaping. I now backed down with my
head hanging low :(
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
simon hart
Sent: 20 February 2005 12:46
To: chon_mon@nym.hush.com; bsin@cox.net; ccielab@groupstudy.com;
richard.dumoulin@vanco.fr
Subject: RE: CBWFQ
Hi,
Your point is well made, and yes the configuration is not doing anything in
respect to queueing, it is only marking. However I am pretty sure that a
policy map will not work under a frame relay map class without Frame Relay
traffic shaping configured on the physical interface.
I will do some further investigation
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: chon_mon@nym.hush.com [mailto:chon_mon@nym.hush.com]
Sent: 20 February 2005 12:16
To: simon.hart@btinternet.com; bsin@cox.net; ccielab@groupstudy.com;
richard.dumoulin@vanco.fr
Subject: RE: CBWFQ
It seemed to me that the configuration below was only marking
telnet traffic (defined in an ACL 101) over DLCI 204 with a
precendence of 5. I don't see how this configuration had anything
to do F/R adaptive shaping. It's true that queueing doesn't start
until there is congestion, and marking packets with precendence
over a F/R DLCI is independent of F/R adaptive shaping.
HTH
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:43:07 -0800 Richard Dumoulin
<Richard.Dumoulin@vanco.fr> wrote:
>I agree with you Simon. The reason being that there is no concept
>of
>congestion in a PVC in order for the software to start to queue
>until
>shaping creates it. I might be wrong though,
>
>-- Richard
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: simon hart [mailto:simon.hart@btinternet.com]
>Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2005 12:37 PM
>To: Bob Sinclair; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: CBWFQ
>
>Mani,
>
>I do not think that the policy map will take effect until you
>apply frame
>relay traffic shaping under the physical interface.
>
>Simon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On
>Behalf Of Bob
>Sinclair
>Sent: 19 February 2005 22:02
>To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: Re: CBWFQ
>
>
>Hi Mani,
>
>You can apply a policy-map within a map-class frame-relay, and
>then apply
>the
>map-class to a DLCI without enabling FRTS. Your example looks
>about right.
>You can also shape just ONE DLCI this way by applying the shape
>average/peak
>command to class class-default. Here is a link that goes into
>more depth:
>
>http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122
>newft/122
>t
>/122t13/frqosmqc.htm
>
>Bob Sinclair
>CCIE #10427, CCSI 30427, CISSP
>www.netmasterclass.net
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: mani poopal
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Sent: Saturday, February 19, 2005 4:28 PM
> Subject: CBWFQ
>
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> If you want to apply a service policy to only one dlci in frame
>relay hub
>and spoke environement. Do we have to enable FRTS(-if)#frane-
>relay
>traffic-shaping), in other words if you define a map-class(map-
>class
>frame-realy QOS), do we have to enable FRTS. Pls look at the
>example below
>
> ========================================
> class-map match-all TELNET
> match access-group 101
> policy-map POLICY
> class TELNET
> set ip precedence 5
>
> interface Serial0
> ip address 150.12.70.2 255.255.255.0
> encapsulation frame-relay
> frame-relay map ip 150.12.70.3 203 broadcast
> frame-relay map ip 150.12.70.4 204 broadcast
> frame-relay interface-dlci 204
> class QOS
>
> map-class frame-relay QOS
> service-policy output POLICY
>
> access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq telnet
>
>
> thanks
>
> Mani
> ===========================================
>
>
>
> B.ENG,A+,CCNA,CCNP,CCNP-VOICE, CSS1,CNA,MCSE
> (416)431 9929
> MANI_CCIE@YAHOO.COM
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>____
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date:
>14/02/2005
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date:
>18/02/2005
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>____
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>*******************************************************************
>***
>Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual
>and not necessarily the company. This email and any files
>transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the
>intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient or the
>person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, be
>advised that you have received this email in error and that any
>dissemination, distribution, copying or use is strictly
>prohibited.
>
>If you have received this email in error, or if you are concerned
>with the content of this email please e-mail to: e-
>security.support@vanco.info
>
>The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may contain software
>viruses which could damage your own computer system. While the
>sender has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise this
>risk, we cannot accept liability for any damage which you sustain
>as a result of software viruses. You should carry out your own
>virus checks before opening any attachments to this e-mail.
>*******************************************************************
>***
>
>___________________________________________________________________
>____
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 18/02/2005-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.1.0 - Release Date: 18/02/2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 03 2005 - 08:51:23 GMT-3