Re: QoS Group

Usually what I see in production is that an explicit-null is advertised for this reason. To have an end-to-end EXP path. For the CCIE lab perspective I would say use QoS-groups to ensure the same behavior from ingress to egress and base your QoS policy on the EXP field that's no longer there with the implicit-null case.

And a last remark, don't study for a CCIE if you don't really need it right? Don't try to get a CCIE, just because you want a CCIE. It only works if you really use your knowledge in the field as well :-) That will make you a true expert.
Just my 2cts :-)

-- 
Regards,
Rick Mur
CCIE2 #21946 (R&S / Service Provider)
Sr. Support Engineer  IPexpert, Inc.
URL: http://www.IPexpert.com
On 30 nov 2009, at 04:46, William McCall wrote:
> I did some googling and I think I get this, but I want a quick
> affirmation so I don't screw up.
> 
> If you reckon that you have a P router attached to a PE and you are
> assuring link QoS characteristics based on EXP, the EXP will be marked
> on ingress at the top-most label.
> 
> At the P router attached to the destination PE, by default, an
> implicit null will be in the LFIB for egress interface towards the PE.
> As a result, to ensure that the EXP is given a proper shape rate, you
> have two options:
> 
> 1) Configure the PE to give an explicit null so the egress shaper on
> the P router can utilize the EXP from the ingress frame
> 2) Utilize QoS groups so the EXP is matched and assigned on ingress to the EXP
> 
> Thoughts, suggestions, clarifications. I need that 2nd CCIE!
> 
> -- 
> William McCall, CCIE #25044
> 
> 
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at: 
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net