From: Joseph Brunner (joe@affirmedsystems.com)
Date: Mon Nov 26 2007 - 06:32:55 ART
Let me see...
>bandwidth 128 or priority 128
Just be aware "bandwidth" deals with contention and gives reservation in
times of high utilization. "Priority" will POLICE (drop) to prevent
starvation. Don't know which behavior you're after.
>Generally we use nested policy maps if we have to shape all the traffic
>along with the prioritization of some type of traffic
If we are providing a queue where no queue exists too, such as a sub-if
(thanks SM!)
You're example will work on main interface frame relay.
Show frame pvc xxx
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Gupta, Gopal (NWCC)
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 1:19 AM
To: Cisco certification
Subject: Is this mandatory to do NESTING of Policy
Hi Folks,
Generally we use nested policy maps if we have to shape all the traffic
along with the prioritization of some type of traffic. correct??
but we can do this w/o nesting as well
e.g
policy-map SHAPE+MIN_BW
class HTTP
bandwidth 128 or priority 128
shape average 512000
class TELNET
bandwidth 384
shape average 512000
Interface s1/0
service-policy output SHAPE+MIN_BW
Assuming our frame-relay interface has 512 Kbps CIR.
My question is can we achieve same thing without using nesting, like the
above example ????
Thanks
Gops
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Dec 01 2007 - 06:37:31 ART