From: san (san.study@gmail.com)
Date: Mon May 02 2005 - 13:55:28 GMT-3
Gladston / Bob,
Correct me if i am wrong.
As soon as "Frame-relay traffic-shapping" is applied on the Physical
interfaces, All Subinterfaces/DLCI's get a 56k shapping enabled by
default.
If So, What will be answer for Gladston's question: (( Can the task
accept 56k shapping between R1 & R2)) ?
"Title: CB Shaping
> Configure shaping on PVC between R1 and R3; does not
> configure shaping between R1(hub) and R2."
Thanks
/SAN
On 5/2/05, gladston@br.ibm.com <gladston@br.ibm.com> wrote:
> It seems Cisco does not follows the same Wendell's distinction between
> FRTS and CB.
> For Cisco, there is an intersection between both: CB Shaping would also be
> FRTS configured using MQC.
> For Wendell, they are two different worlds: FRTS and CB Shaping. MQC
> would be used just to add different Queueing methods into FRTS.
>
> ======================
> Cisco quoted
> The MQC-Based Frame Relay Traffic Shaping feature provides users with the
> ability to configure Frame Relay traffic shaping (FRTS) using Modular
> Quality of Service (QoS) Command Line Interface (CLI) commands. Modular
> QoS CLI is known as MQC.
> ======================
>
> Oh, I can imagine a Lab question saying:
> Title: CB Shaping
> Configure shaping on PVC between R1 and R3; does not
> configure shaping between R1(hub) and R2.
>
> And the Proctor's answer to the question "Should I configure MQC FRTS?"
> would be: -There is enough information on your paper.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gladston
>
> "Bob Sinclair" <bsinclair@netmasterclass.net>
> 02/05/2005 11:12
>
> To
> Alaerte Gladston Vidali/Brazil/IBM@IBMBR, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: FRTS vs MQC
>
> Gladston,
>
> I will leave Odom's claim regarding FRF.12 to others, but for some reason
> Odom continues to claim something that is obviously not true: In both
> editions Odom claims you cannot enable MQC- based shaping on frame-relay
> PVCs, but you most certainly can. Here is a link to accurate
> documentation. And below is a working config demonstrating per-PVC
> MQC-based shaping.
>
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t/122t13/frqosmqc.htm
>
> map-class frame-relay SHAPE
> service-policy output MQC-POLICY
>
> policy-map MQC-POLICY
> class class-default
> shape average 10000 8000 0
>
> interface Serial1/0.1 multipoint
> bandwidth 64
> ip address 172.16.7.1 255.255.255.0
> frame-relay map ip 172.16.7.2 212 broadcast
> frame-relay map ip 172.16.7.3 213 broadcast
> frame-relay interface-dlci 212
> class SHAPE
>
> R1#sh policy-map int
> Serial1/0.1: DLCI 212 -
>
> Service-policy output: MQC-POLICY
>
> Class-map: class-default (match-any)
> 7864 packets, 819162 bytes
> 5 minute offered rate 6000 bps, drop rate 0 bps
> Match: any
> Traffic Shaping
> Target/Average Byte Sustain Excess Interval
> Increment
> Rate Limit bits/int bits/int (ms)
> (bytes)
> 10000/10000 1000 8000 0 800
> 1000
>
> Adapt Queue Packets Bytes Packets Bytes Shaping
> Active Depth Delayed Delayed Active
> - 0 7864 819162 352 37444 no
> R1#
>
> HTH,
>
> Bob Sinclair
> CCIE #10427, CCSI 30427, CISSP
> www.netmasterclass.net
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: gladston@br.ibm.com
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 9:12 AM
> Subject: Re: FRTS vs MQC
>
> Hi,
>
> I would list these:
>
> CB shaping does not support FRF.12 fragmentation on Frame Relay
> subinterfaces and can not be enabled per-VC on multipoint Frame Relay.
>
> From Wendell.
>
> Make sense?
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 03 2005 - 10:11:56 GMT-3