Re: FRTS vs new way

From: san (san.study@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jun 09 2006 - 15:07:35 ART


In the second case (your idea), You are trying to use Shaping on a input
side/traffic. I dont think it will work.

On 6/9/06, Mike O <mikeeo@msn.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>

-- 
Thanks & Rgds
SAN


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