Re: Traditional FRTS vs. MQS

From: Chris Lewis (chrlewiscsco@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Nov 19 2005 - 12:30:34 GMT-3

Next message: kevin gannon: "Re: CCIE #15410 (Passed in San Jose)"
Previous message: Ralph: "Re: CCIE 15393"
Maybe in reply to: blodwick: "Traditional FRTS vs. MQS"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi Brian,

  MQC based FRTS is described at
  http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t/122t13/frqosmqc.htm
   In that document is a configuration to configure CBWFQ on DLCI 100

  If you configure that on a router and look at the show policy-map interface output, you should notice that settings are different to if you apply something like the following:

  interface Serial0/0
ip address 10.3.3.3 255.255.255.0
encapsulation frame-relay
shutdown
no fair-queue
frame-relay traffic-shaping
frame-relay interface-dlci 200
  class test
  map-class frame-relay test
frame-relay cir 64000
frame-relay bc 640
frame-relay mincir 32000
frame-relay adaptive-shaping becn

  Then try to change the Tc by manipulation of the Bc value, (observed via the show frame-relay pvc 200 command) you should see a difference. It is one of granularity.

  Chris

blodwick <blodwick@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
It appears to me that there is nothing within the configuration of
traditional Frame Relay Traffic Shaping that cannot be accomplished via
MQS method. Has anyone looked into this in any detail? As far as what
Ive seen MQS provides all the functionality of FRTS and more.

~Brian L.

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.4/175 - Release Date:
11/18/2005

Next message: kevin gannon: "Re: CCIE #15410 (Passed in San Jose)"
Previous message: Ralph: "Re: CCIE 15393"
Maybe in reply to: blodwick: "Traditional FRTS vs. MQS"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 01 2005 - 09:12:07 GMT-3