From: Herbert Maosa (asawilunda@googlemail.com)
Date: Mon Nov 26 2007 - 12:09:28 ART
By peaked I did not really mean as per IOS shape peak, I simply meant that
it will be allowed 384Kbps maximum rate of transmission.
Herbert.
On Nov 26, 2007 2:32 PM, Gupta, Gopal (NWCC) <gopal.gupta@hp.com> wrote:
> Nice explaination, but could you tell me why is it so, that Telnet
> traffic in your example will always be peaked at 384????and not use shape
> average....
>
> Many Thanks
> Gops
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Herbert Maosa [mailto:asawilunda@googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 26, 2007 18:00
> *To:* Joseph Brunner
> *Cc:* Gupta, Gopal (NWCC); Cisco certification
> *Subject:* Re: Is this mandatory to do NESTING of Policy
>
> It really depends on what you are trying to do. Using an agregate shaper (
> the one you put on the parent policy map in class class-default ), you shape
> all traffic ( all classes ) to one shaping rate. if you individually shape
> the classes, then your classes will not benefit from bursting into unused
> bandwidth on the access. So Telnet traffic in your example will always be
> peaked at 384, even if there was no HTTP traffic flowing, making the 128Kbps
> available. If you used the agregate shaper here, then either class can burst
> up to 512K if the bandwidth is available. If the bandwidth is not available,
> then you guarantee that at least the amount specified as *bandwidth *or *priority
> *will be delivered, at a minimum
>
> So, again, it depends on how you want the traffic to be treated. The
> configuration will permit you to do either way.
>
> My 2 pence worth.
>
> Herbert.
>
> On Nov 26, 2007 9:32 AM, Joseph Brunner <joe@affirmedsystems.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Dec 01 2007 - 06:37:31 ART