From: Godswill Oletu (oletu@inbox.lv)
Date: Sat Jul 15 2006 - 21:14:36 ART
Guarantee does not necessary call for the use of priority queue. The use of
bandwidth is enough to guarantee your traffic in the event of a congestion.
Also the mention of 'minimum' as stated in the original question, will not
make priority queue look good as an option.
> vlan has a guaranteed minimum bandwidth of 128k
Priority queue have an inbuilt policer and it set a maximum and not a
minimum transmission rate. Once that maximum is reached other traffic will
be queued as best effort ie 'no guarantee' and since there is already a
congestion on the interface to begin with, anything above 128K will not be
transmitted, this will run contrary to the objective of the question which
establish a minimum transmission of 128K but leaves the maximum bound open.
IMHO, Bandwidth with randon detect should be enough to meet the objective of
the question.
Godswill Oletu
CCIE #16464
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kay D" <krsna83@gmail.com>
To: "Michael Stout" <michaelgstout@hotmail.com>
Cc: <cvictor@protokolgroup.com>; <jeffryanwn@hotmail.com>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: congestion avoidance question
> Hi,
> The word "guaranteed" makes us think that we would have to use
> "priority queue"
> but the keyword "in case of congestion drop them randomly" makes me
> think that
> there is no difference between "priority queue" and " bandwidth "
> ,,,,as anyways packets would be dropped if there is congestion .
>
> The second part of matching the packets with prec value of 2 and
> assigning a bandwidth , should work with "bandwidth 128" .
>
> Please correct me if i am wrong .
>
> TIA
> Kay D
> Michael Stout wrote:
> > i agree.
> >
> > i think the guaranteed minimum bandwidth of 128k makes a priority queue
a
> > requirement.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > From: "Victor Cappuccio" <cvictor@protokolgroup.com>
> > Reply-To: "Victor Cappuccio" <cvictor@protokolgroup.com>
> > To: "'Jeff Ryan'" <jeffryanwn@hotmail.com>, "'Cisco certification'"
> > <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Subject: RE: congestion avoidance question
> > Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 17:01:35 -0400
> > Hi there Jeff,
> >
> > I think that
> > class PREC_2 is using the priority 128 command.
> >
> > BTW I would like to know which workbook you are using, because I'm
> > looking
> > for a Workbook Specific to QOS Thanks
> > Vmctor.-
> >
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] En nombre de
> > Jeff
> > Ryan
> > Enviado el: Sabado, 15 de Julio de 2006 04:41 p.m.
> > Para: Cisco certification
> > Asunto: congestion avoidance question
> >
> > All, I'm doing a lab and it is aking me to make sure that all traffic
> > leaving
> > FA 0/0 (VlanX) set with Precedence 3 AND/OR traffic from VlanX
> > destined to
> > BB1
> > vlan has a guaranteed minimum bandwidth of 128k. Also, make sure that
> > in
> > case
> > of congestion that these packets get dropped randomly.
> >
> > Limit all traffic leaving FA 0/0 (VlanX) with Precedence 2 to 128k.
> > DO NOT
> > use
> > policing or rate-limiting and DO NOT use an ACL to match IP
> > Precedence.
> >
> > Does this look correct? Thanks in advance - Jeff
> >
> > --------
> > R2#
> > !
> > ip cef
> > !
> > class-map match-any PREC_3_AND_OR_BB1
> > match precedence 3
> > match access-group 101
> > class-map match-all PREC_2
> > match precedence 2
> > !
> > !
> > policy-map VLANX_OUT
> > class PREC_3_AND_OR_BB1
> > bandwidth 128
> > random-detect
> > class PREC_2
> > shape average 128000
> > !
> > interface FastEthernet0/0
> > service-policy output VLANX_OUT
> > !
> > access-list 101 permit ip 1.1.20.0 0.0.0.255 150.100.1.0 0.0.0.255
> > !
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Aug 01 2006 - 07:13:47 ART