From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Mon Sep 05 2005 - 09:05:00 GMT-3
Now, what fun would there be in answering the original question? :)
But yes, Brian is right. In an MQC environment, the "priority" keyword
engages the low-latency queue (catchy name for being the solution desired!)
Depending on the environment you are in (link speed, etc) it may still be
beneficial to engage in LFI or FRF-based fragmentation so that your voice
packets don't wait for the serialization delay. But that may be beyond the
scope of the question asked of you.
The "queue is 640k" refers to using "priority 640" in your config. There's
really nothing to do with the number of packets per queue.
HTH,
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Grey [mailto:examplebrain@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 12:04 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com; swm@emanon.com; gladston@br.ibm.com;
aarumuga@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: How to guarantee the latency
Hello,
I am the original author of the question, below is the complete question and
the answer on this of the Brian. I still have not the answer on my question.
As far as I understood the priority command should be used in this case??
HOw should we influence the queue size than? Could anybody. It would be
great if also anybody could give a configuration for this.
Thanks again for everyone,
> Latency is a measurement of delay. Delay can be minimized through
the
>legacy priority-queue or the MQC low latency queue (priority keyword in
>the policy-map).
>
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > The router R1 is configured to router BB2. The latency should be
> > guaranteed between them. The optimum situation is when the speed
> > between them is
>56k
> > and the queue is 640k. And the connecteion between R1 and BB2 is
>ethernet.
> >
> > Any ideas how to solve this?? Should it be policing or shaping or
> > something else? How would you interpret this.
> > Thanks for any input.
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 02 2005 - 14:40:14 GMT-3