From: Mike O (mikeeo@msn.com)
Date: Fri Jun 09 2006 - 14:39:54 ART
the question didn't say change any Bc, Tc parameters. Just said to guarantee
80% of 384k to returning web traffic.
I think I'm missing shape adpative min-rate which is equal to mincir on
FRTS.
Since the interface is a sub p-t-p its already applied to the DLCI and the
IOS calculated a Bc automactially using a default Tc of 125 ms.
I think the shape adpative min-rate would have got me points, besides that
everything else is the same just doing it a different way.
>From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
>Reply-To: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
>To: "'ZeroFlash'" <Fire_Ice@verizon.net>, "'Mike O'" <mikeeo@msn.com>,
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: RE: FRTS vs new way
>Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 12:31:03 -0400
>
>I agree with Zero, that the whole answer would depend on the way the
>question was actually worded.
>
>While both are methods of shaping, taken out of context could lead to
>completely different conclusions and operations there! One is per-pvc
>while
>the other is per-class of traffic. One is shown to give us a mincir, one
>is
>shown as simple shaping to that rate.
>
>I don't think there's enough detail as given to really hazard more than a
>guess there!
>
>Just my thoughts.
>
>
>Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE
>#153, CISSP, et al.
>CCSI/JNCI
>IPExpert CCIE Program Manager
>IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
>smorris@ipexpert.com
>http://www.ipexpert.com
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>ZeroFlash
>Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 11:50 AM
>To: 'Mike O'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: FRTS vs new way
>
>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
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>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 : Sat Jul 01 2006 - 07:57:32 ART