From: rom raj (romraj1@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Jul 03 2008 - 09:28:15 ART
Hi Scott,
Looking at your signature that you have moved to the other company. I just
collected a T-Shirt (ipexpert) from you last week and you are now with the
other vendor. Hope I can get a T-Shirt (Internetworkexpert) from you next
year.
All the best!
Regards,
Rom
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com> wrote:
> Yes and no.
>
> You're correct about the Pak Priority concept in routers. That's a coding
> issue. You won't see it down the line because routing protocols (IGPs) are
> designed to be link-local in nature, so further routing isn't necessary.
>
> As for switches, if you enable mls qos, you can look at the queuing details
> and see that hardware queuing kicks in. I don't know as I have ever looked
> to see whether the IP Prec - to - hardware queue mapping occurs if mls qos
> is not turned on though....
>
> Anyone ever looked? :) My 3750 seems to be clear about it not being
> turned
> on.
>
> emanon-Bellerive#sh mls qos int f1/0/1 q
> FastEthernet1/0/1
> QoS is disabled. When QoS is enabled, following settings will be applied
> Egress Priority Queue : disabled
> Shaped queue weights (absolute) : 25 0 0 0
> Shared queue weights : 25 25 25 25
> The port bandwidth limit : 100
> The port is mapped to qset : 1
>
> emanon-Bellerive#
>
>
> Scott Morris, CCIE4 #4713, JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al.
> CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER
> Senior CCIE Instructor
>
> smorris@internetworkexpert.com
>
>
>
> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
> Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
> 24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
> Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
>
> Knowledge is power.
> Power corrupts.
> Study hard and be Eeeeviiiil......
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Bill
> Eyer
> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 6:42 AM
> To: Tyson Scott
> Cc: Morris, Jason L.; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: DSCP and default PHB
>
> I have also came across references that indicate that a routers "own"
> packets for routing protocols, usually marked with ip prec 6 are queued
> independently without enabling a queueing mechanism. This does not seem to
> translate to the next-hop router though, in other words each router
> specially queues it's own routing protocol packets but if they go through a
> switch there is no special queueing. Off hand, I can't think of a way to
> verify this.
>
> Bill
>
> Tyson Scott wrote:
> > By default the DSCP field is not interpreted without turning on a
> > queueing mechanism. By default FIFO.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:15 PM, Morris, Jason L. <Jasmorris@checkngo.com
> >
> wrote:
> >
> >> Just to clarify and dispel my ignorance...
> >>
> >> There is no 'default' 'per hope behavior' for a Cisco router or switch
> >> that depends on DSCP markings? Those markings are just so you can
> >> classify traffic and then manually configure PHB on each device right?
> >> That's been my assumption up to this point but I was review some QoS
> >> stuff in a buddies ONS - CCNP book and it inferred (or at least made me
> >> question) that the router was doing something different with EF marked
> >> packets without explicitly being told to...
> >>
> >> That's not the case right? It doesn't by default, out of the box, treat
> >> differently marked DSCP traffic differently?
> >>
> >> Jason Morris
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________________________________
> >> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 04 2008 - 06:11:53 ART