From: Gregory Gombas (ggombas@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 25 2007 - 16:41:10 ART
Thanks Jay.
So if you forget to allocate the 3% for control traffic will the
control traffic end up in class default?
What part does max-reserved-bandwidth play in all this?
Isn't 25% of the available bandwidth already reserved for control traffic?
Thanks again,
Greg
On 6/25/07, Swan, Jay <jswan@sugf.com> wrote:
> I believe the current QoS SRND recommends allocating 3% of link
> bandwidth to CS6 control traffic.
>
> On most platforms I think pak_priority should take care of IGPs, but it
> doesn't provide for BGP or other control-type stuff like RSVP.
>
> IS-IS is also a special case since it's not IP traffic, and thus doesn't
> have a DSCP value.
>
> Jay
> #17783
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Gregory Gombas
> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 11:03 AM
> To: Group study
> Subject: CBWFQ and pak_priority
>
> I was wondering if you need to specify a seperate class-map for
> routing protocols.
>
> According to the following doc:
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk543/tk544/technologies_tech_note09186a
> 0080094612.shtml
>
> On some platforms you need to specifically assign to a queue:
> "In other words, on the Cisco 7500 series, if an output service-policy
> is attached to the interface, then the packets are classified with
> respect to the classes in that policy, and the pak_priority packet is
> placed at the end of the chosen class queue. If the pak_priority
> packet does not match any user defined class, then it is placed at the
> tail of the class-default queue.".
>
> What is the rule of thumb regarding routing protocol QOS?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jul 01 2007 - 17:24:51 ART