Re: Why not CBWFQ in switches ?

From: John Gibson (johngibson1541@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed May 09 2007 - 10:24:15 ART

• Next message: quiet blue: "Re: Easy VPN with profiles"
• Previous message: Ronnie Angello: "Re: Port-channel Load-balance"
• Maybe in reply to: John Gibson: "Why not CBWFQ in switches ?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

I found the answer myself. 3750 uses CBWFQ. The white
paper says it is the "high level of QoS".

> Too expensive ? Too slow ? Both right ? Neither ?
> These are expensive switches , doesn't sound right
> to
> save some little money on the circuits and chips.
>
> John
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

• Next message: quiet blue: "Re: Easy VPN with profiles"
• Previous message: Ronnie Angello: "Re: Port-channel Load-balance"
• Maybe in reply to: John Gibson: "Why not CBWFQ in switches ?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Jun 01 2007 - 06:55:20 ART