HELP - Bandwidth Statement on sub-interfaces

From: Victor (cisco.all.stuff@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Feb 26 2009 - 15:52:14 ARST

• Next message: Peter Kurdziel: "Re: idlepc values"
• Previous message: Kelvin Yeo: "OT - G.703 for E1 in India"
• Next in thread: ALL From_NJ: "Re: HELP - Bandwidth Statement on sub-interfaces"
• Maybe reply: ALL From_NJ: "Re: HELP - Bandwidth Statement on sub-interfaces"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi People,
I need your considerations about the differences between using the bandwidth
statement in sub-interfaces and physical interfaces (informational purposes
for routing protocols). It's really necessary to have the same statement in
both cases (even in the case of bandwidth inherits or placing them
directly)??? What is the best practice??

Thanks in advance and regards..... Johan

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net

• Next message: Peter Kurdziel: "Re: idlepc values"
• Previous message: Kelvin Yeo: "OT - G.703 for E1 in India"
• Next in thread: ALL From_NJ: "Re: HELP - Bandwidth Statement on sub-interfaces"
• Maybe reply: ALL From_NJ: "Re: HELP - Bandwidth Statement on sub-interfaces"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 01 2009 - 09:44:13 ARST