From: Niche (jackyliu419@gmail.com)
Date: Tue Sep 06 2005 - 00:23:23 GMT-3
Hi all,
Will calculate the packet fragmentation help to resolve this question?
(The bandwidth of the link / 8)byte
---------------------------------------------------------------
(The max. delay that can tolerate (ms) / 1s)
Then according to the result, modify the mtu size of the link.
Best Regards,
Jacky
On 9/6/05, Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com> wrote:
>
> If SPEED between them is 56K, then I'd start looking at what other pieces
> were mentioned (alone which is what I read at the bottom of these threads)
> nearby to give the whole picture.
>
> If the speed is considered to be 56K (as in shaping), then you may get
> into
> a LFI/frame-relay fragmentation scenario. Either way, the part "the queue
> is 640K" doesn't belong. If you're looking at a 56K line, they may say the
> optimum frame size has been determined to be 640 which would be about
> right
> in a voice integration setup. Then you'll use LFI (if PPPoFR) or
> Frame-Relay Fragmentation in the map class. But it's not measured in K,
> it's just measured in bytes.
>
> Now, I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings here, but since we're spending
> so much time on this, and it's a not-real-well worded thing, the little
> bells in my head are going off about someone trying to remember what their
> lab said and why they didn't get the points. The scenario as quoted makes
> no sense. So are we trying to reverse engineer someone's real lab?
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> gladston@br.ibm.com
> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 1:07 PM
> To: swm@emanon.com
> Cc: aarumuga@hotmail.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com; 'Stefan Grey'
> Subject: RE: How to guarantee the latency
>
> Sorry Scott, I mean the value, 640k.
> The poster said "The optimum situation is when the speed between them is
> 56k and the queue is 640k"
>
> ...and you posted that it should use priority 640.
>
> Could you explain the logic between "the queue is 640k" and 'priority
> 640'?
>
> I am wondering what I am missing, because I associated 'queue is 640k' to
> setting the deep of the queue, not the bps on the priority command.
>
> Cordially,
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gladston
>
>
>
>
> "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
> 05/09/2005 13:52
> Please respond to
> <swm@emanon.com>
>
>
> To
> Alaerte Gladston Vidali/Brazil/IBM@IBMBR
> cc
> <aarumuga@hotmail.com>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>, "'Stefan Grey'"
> <examplebrain@hotmail.com>
> Subject
> RE: How to guarantee the latency
>
>
>
>
>
>
> According to the original post:
>
> > > 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.
>
> Now, with certain things in mind:
>
> 1. The connection is ethernet. At this speed, there is no worry about
> propogation delays here (fragmentation and interleave)
>
> 2. The idea is to guarantee the latency. This is strange wording, but
> one
> should assume this means the best latency (e.g. lowest) possible.
>
> 3. So, what we've ascertained is that I need to do some sort of queuing
> to
> give preference to the packets, and I need low latency. Put 'em together
> and you get 'low latency queuing' which is a feature of the MQC command
> set
> and "priority" keywords.
>
> HTH,
>
> Scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> gladston@br.ibm.com
> Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 12:31 PM
> To: swm@emanon.com
> Cc: aarumuga@hotmail.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com; 'Stefan Grey'
> Subject: RE: How to guarantee the latency
>
> Scott,
>
> Could you explain how to make that conclusion?
>
> ==========================
> quoted
> The "queue is 640k" refers to using "priority 640"
> ==========================
>
> Cordially,
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gladston
>
>
>
>
> "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
> 05/09/2005 09:05
> Please respond to
> <swm@emanon.com>
>
>
> To
> "'Stefan Grey'" <examplebrain@hotmail.com>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>,
> Alaerte Gladston Vidali/Brazil/IBM@IBMBR, <aarumuga@hotmail.com>
> cc
>
> Subject
> RE: How to guarantee the latency
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
> > >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Dating has never been easier - get FREE Match.com
<http://Match.com>membership!
> http://match.msn.ie/match/mt.cfm?pg=channel&tcid=237596
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 02 2005 - 14:40:14 GMT-3