From: Ivan (ivan@iip.net)
Date: Tue Nov 14 2006 - 13:21:53 ART
Fragmentation need to reduce latency delay during serizlization phase packet
out. In this phase digital representation of packet convert to analog. In
this case CIR not plays any role.
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 18:41, Alexei Monastyrnyi wrote:
> Just a quick example here - physical interface with AIR 128, one PVC
> with shaping to CIR 64.
>
> map-class frame-relay FRF
> frame-relay cir 64000
> frame-relay bc 640
> frame-relay be 0
> frame-relay fair-queue
> frame-relay fragment 80 <- based on CIR
>
> vs
>
> map-class frame-relay FRF
> frame-relay cir 64000
> frame-relay bc 640
> frame-relay be 0
> frame-relay fair-queue
> frame-relay fragment 160 <- based on AIR
>
> Why second one is usually said to be recommended?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> A.
>
> Alexei Monastyrnyi wrote:
> > Hi Group.
> >
> > I have checked discussions happened to be on this topic starting from
> > April but haven't found any clear understanding of how one should pick
> > a fragment size with regards to CIR/AIR of the interface.
> >
> > DocCD and Odom's QoS Guide say that one should consider AIR of the
> > slowest end. In some scenarios CIR (shaping rate) is considered when
> > picking fragment size.
> >
> > Could someone point to pros and cons of either approach?
> >
> > TIA,
> > A.
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > 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
-- Ivan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Dec 01 2006 - 08:05:47 ART