RE: Priority vs Policing

The part that's important for voice traffic is that LLQ (using the priority
keyword) traffic is send before other queues. This means that delay sensitive
traffic (such as voice) will suffer the least from congestion.

Using Policing and LLQ are two different animals and are used for different
applications. You wouldn't use the priority keyword to do policing and vice
versa.

Thanks,

Jacob Uecker
CCIE# 24481

Development Engineer
CCBOOTCAMP - Cisco Learning Partner (CLP)
Toll Free: 877-654-2243
International: +1-702-968-5100
Skype: skype:ccbootcamp?call
FAX: +1-702-446-8012

YES! We take Cisco Learning Credits!

Training And Remote Racks: http://www.ccbootcamp.com

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com on behalf of Molomo
Sent: Wed 7/29/2009 5:30 AM
To: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com
Subject: Priority vs Policing

Experts,
Correct me if I'm wrong on the understanding of Priority and Policing in a
policy-map , MQC.

policy-map POLICY_MAP
 class VOICE
   priority 30

Traffic in this class will be gauranteed maximum 30Kbps bandwidth and will
always be send first. When there is no congestion excess traffic will be
forwared but not prioritized and during congestion excess traffic will de
dropped.

policy-map POLICY_MAP
 class VOICE
   police 30000 1000 conform-action transmit exceed-action drop -

Traffic in this class will ALWAYS be rate limited to 30Kbps congestion or
not, conforming traffic will be transmitted and excess dropped.

Now if my understanding is correct why is it that in most
implementations voice traffice is used with priority (LLQ). IMO it will make
more sense to use policing for voice class because ideally you would
always want voice traffic strict policed- congestion or no congestion.

Or am I missing something?

Rgds,
Molomo

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Wed Jul 29 2009 - 05:36:27 ART