From: Dino Picinich (dino.picinich@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 13 2007 - 08:49:49 ART
Where does PAK_PRIORITY fit into all this? I thought even if you used the
max-reserve-bandwidth command and used 100% of the default-class, all IGPs
and control traffic were protected by PAK_PRIORITY? Is that not the case?
TIA,
Dino
On 7/13/07, Djerk Geurts <djerk@djerk.nl> wrote:
>
> Carlos,
>
> > Djerk,
> > this is exactly what I was saying, so we agree.
> > (Nobody remembers custom queueing ???)
>
> Correct. Nobody _wants_ to remember custom queueing... ;)
>
> > I don't understand the PQ(LLQ) thing you are bringing up though.
> > PQs have priority, which is a police statement. They get ALL the
> > bandwidth, even first thing (PQ, right?) but up to this much.
> > AFAIK, a queue becomes a PQ when you use the priority keyword,
> > and this implies the policing of it, so there is no way you can
> > have a PQ w/o policing.
>
> Apparently this is not true, CCO doesn't help here as there are too many
> conflicting docs on QoS there.
>
> One has to distingush here between software (up to 7200) and hardware
> (7300
> GSR CRS-1) based platforms. The priority key-word, like you say, enables
> the
> priority queue. However the word strict has come to mean (to me at least)
> a
> policed PQ. The confusion is that a priority statement with bandwidth %
> isn't a policed PQ, resulting in 'unpredictable' behaviour when shaping
> VoIP
> traffic. So does this mean it is a strict PQ? I recall something from
> Networkers this year that best practice is to use the priority keyword
> with
> a police statement and not use the bandwidth option on the priority
> statement.
>
> So please correct me if I'm wrong Cannes was back in January after all and
> I've not had the time since to look it up in my notes or hand-outs. Btw, I
> don't trust CCO anymore on the subject of QoS...
>
> I understand that things may be different from what they said at
> Networkers
> to what we study for the lab. Networkers referred to the CRS-1 mostly (due
> to marketing?) while the lab uses only SW based routers.
>
> > The whole thing I was trying to say is that the default queue
> > works like a "low priority" queue, but without the grace of
> > the policing of the rest, and thus the starving possibility.
> > (when no bandwidth is assigned)
>
> I agree totally
>
> > BTW, queues don't need to know their bit rates, just their "share"
> > of available BW. In your examples, 3/4/3 or 1/5/4.
>
> And again 100% correct
>
> > -Carlos
>
> Djerk
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Aug 18 2007 - 08:17:40 ART