RE: FRTS vs new way

From: ZeroFlash (Fire_Ice@verizon.net)
Date: Fri Jun 09 2006 - 12:50:26 ART


I would say it depends on the requirement that is being asked of you. If
they ask for traffic shaping I personally wouldn't shape the traffic using a
policy map. I would go with frame-relay traffic shaping.

As for your answer being correct.

I wouldn't think so because you are shaping to a bandwidth of 384k with a
burst of 48k. The solutions guide isn't pointing to that but without knowing
what the question is can't really say.

Can you post the question for us, then can give you a better answer.

Thanks

ZeroFlash
CCIE #16217

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Mike
O
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 9:36 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: FRTS vs new way

I did a lab one way and the solution is being presented in another. But does

my way work the same?

Solution guide:

class-map HTTP
match access-group 101

policy-map 501
class HTTP
bandwidth percent 80

int s0/0
frame-relay traffic-shaping

int s0/0.501
frame-relay class 501

map-class frame-relay 501
frame-relay mincir 384000
service-policy output 501

access-list 101 permit tcp any eq 80 any

My way:

map-class HTTP
match address 101

policy-map 501
class HTTP
priority percent 80

policy-map IN_HTTP
class class-default
shape average 384000 48000
service-policy 501

int s0/0.501
service-policy input IN_HTTP



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 01 2006 - 07:57:32 ART