WFQ

From: John (jgarrison1@austin.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jul 12 2008 - 17:34:42 ART

• Next message: Joseph Brunner: "RE: WFQ"
• Previous message: paul cosgrove: "Re: VTP"
• Next in thread: Joseph Brunner: "RE: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Joseph Brunner: "RE: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Anthony Sequeira: "RE: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Narbik Kocharians: "Re: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Petr Lapukhov: "Re: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Petr Lapukhov: "Re: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Narbik Kocharians: "Re: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Shawn Zandi: "Re: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Narbik Kocharians: "Re: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: John: "Re: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Scott Morris: "RE: WFQ"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

I don't know why I have a hard time getting this, but lets see if I have this
right.

WFQ will give low volume traffic "better treatment" then high volume traffic.
It does this through some mysterious algorithm that I can't seem to find. WFQ
is the default for all interfaces under E1 speeds. WFQ works with ip
precedence and RSVP. WFQ is flow based. I cannot change the behaviour of WFQ
through configuration. There are some QOS features I cannot configure on an
interface with WFQ.

Thats what I get. I would appreciate comments on anything I missed or got
wrong

• Next message: Joseph Brunner: "RE: WFQ"
• Previous message: paul cosgrove: "Re: VTP"
• Next in thread: Joseph Brunner: "RE: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Joseph Brunner: "RE: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Anthony Sequeira: "RE: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Narbik Kocharians: "Re: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Petr Lapukhov: "Re: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Petr Lapukhov: "Re: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Narbik Kocharians: "Re: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Shawn Zandi: "Re: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Narbik Kocharians: "Re: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: John: "Re: WFQ"
• Maybe reply: Scott Morris: "RE: WFQ"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 04 2008 - 06:11:54 ART