Re: LLQ

i redid the test 9still using dynamips) and added another router.

setup is: r1------r3------r2

pings are from r1 to r2

r3 with llq -

start with zero counters on s1/2 which connects to r2 -

Rack1R3#sh policy-map int s1/2
 Serial1/2

  Service-policy output: 2hip

    Class-map: 2hip (match-all)
      0 packets, 0 bytes
      5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
      Match: access-group 101
      Queueing
        Strict Priority
        Output Queue: Conversation 264
        Bandwidth 512 (kbps) Burst 12800 (Bytes)
        (pkts matched/bytes matched) 0/0
        (total drops/bytes drops) 0/0

    Class-map: class-default (match-any)
      1 packets, 24 bytes
      5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
      Match: any
Rack1R3#

start pings from r1, timeout zero to generate traffic -

after a few seconds, the policy map looks like this:

Rack1R3#sh policy-map int s1/2
 Serial1/2

  Service-policy output: 2hip

    Class-map: 2hip (match-all)
      21317 packets, 32060768 bytes
      5 minute offered rate 802000 bps, drop rate 455000 bps
      Match: access-group 101
      Queueing
        Strict Priority
        Output Queue: Conversation 264
        Bandwidth 512 (kbps) Burst 12800 (Bytes)
        (pkts matched/bytes matched) 13901/20907104
        (total drops/bytes drops) 12024/18084096

    Class-map: class-default (match-any)
      6 packets, 445 bytes
      5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
      Match: any

you can see the imlicit policer in llq dropping tons of packets.

dynamips is showing what i expected for llq, so i like it. if it showed
something else, i would say it is crap!! :)

ron

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Edison Ortiz <edisonmortiz_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> BTW,
>
>
>
> I noticed your configuration changes and ping test. Both were done on the
> same router.
>
> To test QoS efficiently you need to generate traffic from a device sitting
> behind the router, not on the router doing the QoS.
>
>
>
>
>
> Edison Ortiz
>
> Routing and Switching, CCIE # 17943
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Edison Ortiz [mailto:edisonmortiz_at_gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 08, 2009 3:57 PM
> *To:* 'ron wilkerson'
> *Cc:* 'Cisco certification'
> *Subject:* RE: LLQ
>
>
>
> You wont be able to generate 512kbps from a ping on a router. Lower that
> value  as you noticed I went for the minimum allowed to notice the
behavior
> right away.
>
>
>
>
>
> Edison Ortiz
>
> Routing and Switching, CCIE # 17943
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> ron wilkerson
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 3:48 PM
> To: Tony Varriale
> Cc: Cisco certification
> Subject: Re: LLQ
>
>
>
> don't mean to add to the confusion but after reading edison's test, i
>
> couldn't believe the results, so using dynamips, i conducted my own test
>
> between llq and policing. i didn't expect the policer to behave
> differently
>
> than llq for excess traffic (which is what ed's test showed).
>
>
>
> my test: the first ping is with llq at 512k, 93% success. the second test
>
> is with the policer at 512k, 94% success. this is what i expected, which
> is
>
> completely different that ed's test which showed that the policer dropped
>
> all traffic.
>
>
>
> i don't understand how ed's policer test dropped all traffic
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rack1R1#ping 3.3.3.3 si 1500 re 100
>
>
>
> Type escape sequence to abort.
>
> Sending 100, 1500-byte ICMP Echos to 3.3.3.3, timeout is 2 seconds:
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!.!
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
>
> Success rate is 93 percent (93/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 4/10/52 ms
>
> Rack1R1#conf
>
> Configuring from terminal, memory, or network [terminal]?
>
> Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z.
>
> Rack1R1(config)#poli
>
> Rack1R1(config)#policy-map 2hip
>
> Rack1R1(config-pmap)#class 2hip
>
> Rack1R1(config-pmap-c)#no pri
>
> Rack1R1(config-pmap-c)#no priority 512
>
> Rack1R1(config-pmap-c)#police 512000
>
> Rack1R1(config-pmap-c-police)#^Z
>
> Rack1R1#ping 3.3.3.3 si 1500 re 100
>
> *Mar 1 00:18:29.671: %SYS-5-CONFIG_I: Configured from console by console
>
> Rack1R1#ping 3.3.3.3 si 1500 re 100
>
>
>
> Type escape sequence to abort.
>
> Sending 100, 1500-byte ICMP Echos to 3.3.3.3, timeout is 2 seconds:
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!
>
> Success rate is 94 percent (94/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 1/9/64 ms
>
> Rack1R1#
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Tony Varriale <tvarriale_at_flamboyaninc.com
> >wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think based on SOME of the testing that's been posted here that's not
>
> > necessary. Hence, my post for clarification.
>
> >
>
> > Simply restating what the docs say is easy. Anyone tested this on IOS?
>
> > Maybe try 12.4T and 12.4 mainline?
>
> >
>
> > tv
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>
> > Edison Ortiz
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:24 PM
>
> > To: 'Cisco certification'
>
> > Subject: RE: LLQ
>
> >
>
> > "So from what I understand, the above text is saying that this
>
> > rate-limiting
>
> > will only take place under interface congestion; thus if the interface is
>
> > not congested the priority queue is not really a policer, and might take
>
> > more than what is configured with the priority command."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Correct. If you want to police a class with LLQ under all conditions
>
> > (congestion or not) - as Narbik noted add the police command under that
>
> > class as well.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Edison Ortiz
>
> >
>
> > Routing and Switching, CCIE # 17943
>
> >
>
> > _____
>
> >
>
> > From: karim jamali [mailto:karim.jamali_at_gmail.com]
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 3:17 PM
>
> > To: Edison Ortiz; Cisco certification
>
> > Subject: Re: LLQ
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Hi Experts,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Quote from Petr's post Insights on CBWFQ on the following link:
>
> >
>
> > http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/08/17/insights-on-cbwfq/
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If you have priority bandwidth configured in your policy map, subtract
> this
>
> > value from total interface bandwidth to yield the amount of bandwidth
>
> > available to other classes. The priority queue is only rate-limited under
>
> > interface congestion, and in such case, it cannot get more bandwidth than
>
> > configured with priority statement.
>
> >
>
> > So from what I understand, the above text is saying that this
> rate-limiting
>
> > will only take place under interface congestion; thus if the interface is
>
> > not congested the priority queue is not really a policer, and might take
>
> > more than what is configured with the priority command.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thank You Edison for the testing!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Best Regards,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Edison Ortiz <edisonmortiz_at_gmail.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I don't have the original testing at the moment but I quickly pull up a
>
> > scenario.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > R2 <----> R0 <----> R3
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > R0 will LLQ traffic from R2 towards R3 - for this example, I lowered the
>
> > priority to a minimum value to observe any drops with a simple ping (size
>
> > 1500 bytes).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > R0 config:
>
> >
>
> > class-map match-all EF
>
> >
>
> > match ip dscp ef
>
> >
>
> > !
>
> >
>
> > !
>
> >
>
> > policy-map WAN_QOS
>
> >
>
> > class EF
>
> >
>
> > priority 9
>
> >
>
> > !
>
> >
>
> > R0#sh policy-map interface
>
> >
>
> > FastEthernet0/1
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Service-policy output: WAN_QOS
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Class-map: EF (match-all)
>
> >
>
> > 0 packets, 0 bytes
>
> >
>
> > 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
>
> >
>
> > Match: ip dscp ef (46)
>
> >
>
> > Queueing
>
> >
>
> > Strict Priority
>
> >
>
> > Output Queue: Conversation 264
>
> >
>
> > Bandwidth 9 (kbps) Burst 225 (Bytes)
>
> >
>
> > (pkts matched/bytes matched) 0/0
>
> >
>
> > (total drops/bytes drops) 0/0
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Class-map: class-default (match-any)
>
> >
>
> > 1 packets, 74 bytes
>
> >
>
> > 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
>
> >
>
> > Match: any
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Generate some traffic from R2
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > R2#ping
>
> >
>
> > Protocol [ip]:
>
> >
>
> > Target IP address: 10.1.1.2
>
> >
>
> > Repeat count [5]: 10000
>
> >
>
> > Datagram size [100]: 1500
>
> >
>
> > Timeout in seconds [2]:
>
> >
>
> > Extended commands [n]: y
>
> >
>
> > Source address or interface:
>
> >
>
> > Type of service [0]: 0xB8
>
> >
>
> > Set DF bit in IP header? [no]:
>
> >
>
> > Validate reply data? [no]:
>
> >
>
> > Data pattern [0xABCD]:
>
> >
>
> > Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[none]:
>
> >
>
> > Sweep range of sizes [n]:
>
> >
>
> > Type escape sequence to abort.
>
> >
>
> > Sending 10000, 1500-byte ICMP Echos to 10.1.1.2, timeout is 2 seconds:
>
> >
>
> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On R0:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > R0#sh policy-map interface
>
> >
>
> > FastEthernet0/1
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Service-policy output: WAN_QOS
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Class-map: EF (match-all)
>
> >
>
> > 697 packets, 1055258 bytes
>
> >
>
> > 5 minute offered rate 27000 bps, drop rate 1000 bps
>
> >
>
> > Match: ip dscp ef (46)
>
> >
>
> > Queueing
>
> >
>
> > Strict Priority
>
> >
>
> > Output Queue: Conversation 264
>
> >
>
> > Bandwidth 9 (kbps) Burst 225 (Bytes)
>
> >
>
> > (pkts matched/bytes matched) 2/3028
>
> >
>
> > (total drops/bytes drops) 2/3028
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > You will notice some drop rate on the output and some drop was noticed on
>
> > R2
>
> >
>
> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >
>
> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >
>
> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >
>
> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >
>
> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >
>
> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >
>
> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> >
>
> > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > but the flow was not completely dropped like a policer.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Let's test with a policer..
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On R0:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > class-map match-all EF
>
> >
>
> > match ip dscp ef
>
> >
>
> > !
>
> >
>
> > !
>
> >
>
> > policy-map WAN_QOS
>
> >
>
> > class EF
>
> >
>
> > police 9000
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On R2:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > ...
>
> >
>
> > ..........................
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Feel free to perform your own test as well.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Edison Ortiz
>
> >
>
> > Routing and Switching, CCIE # 17943
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> >
>
> > From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>
> > Tony
>
> > Varriale
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:23 PM
>
> > To: 'Cisco certification'
>
> > Subject: RE: LLQ
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I'm aware of what the docs say. I thought this was discussed here and
>
> > found
>
> >
>
> > that anything over the priority statement was dropped. I could be
>
> >
>
> > remembering incorrectly.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Do you have any of your testing that you care to share publically?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Tony Varriale
>
> >
>
> > Flamboyan, Inc.
>
> >
>
> > C: 630.546.7610
>
> >
>
> > F: 815.717.9436
>
> >
>
> > tvarriale_at_flamboyaninc.com
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> >
>
> > From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>
> >
>
> > Edison Ortiz
>
> >
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 12:32 PM
>
> >
>
> > Cc: 'Cisco certification'
>
> >
>
> > Subject: RE: LLQ
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The documentation and my testing say otherwise:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "When the device is not congested, the priority class traffic is allowed
> to
>
> >
>
> > exceed its allocated bandwidth. When the device is congested, the
> priority
>
> >
>
> > class traffic above the allocated bandwidth is discarded."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/qos/command/reference/qos_n1.html#wp1048
>
> >
>
> > 842
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Edison Ortiz
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Routing and Switching, CCIE # 17943
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> >
>
> > From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>
> >
>
> > Ahmed Elhoussiny
>
> >
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 1:19 PM
>
> >
>
> > To: Tony Varriale
>
> >
>
> > Cc: Cisco certification
>
> >
>
> > Subject: Re: LLQ
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Dear all,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > if LLQ is used for VOIP, it will get dropped/policed in case
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > the traffic exceeds the LLQ size.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > And this in case there is congestion and same if there is no congestion.`
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > LLQ got nothin to do with congestion, this is based on IOS & IOS XR
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > features & also my testing while designing QOS for my Mobile operator.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In some references you may find LLQ congestion aware....but this didn't
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > successfully being implemented till now...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > WHY ?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > simply imagine u have an LLQ class with 1 M , and no interface BW
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > congestion.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > VOIP traffic increased to reach 2 M, and no drops cuz of no congestion
> due
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > to not used BW on other classes...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > SO what if the traffic in other queues increased, and reached its 100 %,
>
> > now
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > the LLQ will decrease to reach 1 M, and all VOIP calls will get some
>
> > packets
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > dropped which will affect most of VOIP calls...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Hope this might help
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Thanks & B.regards
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Ahmed Elhoussiny,2x CCIE# 21988 (R&S-SP)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Network Consultant & Cisco Academy Instructor
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Tony Varriale
>
> >
>
> > <tvarriale_at_flamboyaninc.com>wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > I thought the priority queue won't use the general bucket when it's
> over
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > its
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > defined number? Hence, all packets will get dropped.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > tv
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Narbik Kocharians
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:20 AM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > To: Wouter Prins
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Cc: jack daniels; Cisco certification
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Subject: Re: LLQ
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > If you like the voice traffic to get 1M and 1M ONLY, then, provide LLQ
>
> > and
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Police that traffic at the same time. Very common.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Wouter Prins <wp_at_null0.nl> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Hello Jack,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > What do you think would happen to the other traffic if the voice
>
> > traffic
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > was
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > allowed to burst to 2M in a LLQ?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Depending on whether the interface is congested or not, the traffic
>
> >
>
> > would
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > be
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > dropped if it exceeds the bw you specify in the priority command.
> It's
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > sort
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > of a conditional policer. The traffic will not end up in the default
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > class.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > 2009/12/8 jack daniels <jckdaniels12_at_gmail.com>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Hi guys,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > > Please help me with the understanding of LLQ -
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > > If I have a link of 2 MB
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > > and I reserve 1 MB for VOICE ( LLQ) the if voice exceeds 1 MB will
> it
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > be
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > > droppped or be sent in default class.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > --
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Wouter Prins
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > wp_at_null0.nl
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > CCIE #25628
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net <
> http://www.ccie.net/>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > Subscription information may be found at:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > --
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Narbik Kocharians
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > CCSI#30832, CCIE# 12410 (R&S, SP, Security)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > www.MicronicsTraining.com <http://www.micronicstraining.com/>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Sr. Technical Instructor
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > YES! We take Cisco Learning Credits!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Training And Remote Racks available
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net <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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <http://www.ccie.net/>
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________________________________
>
> > Subscription information may be found at:
>
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > KJ
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 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
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________________________________
>
> > Subscription information may be found at:
>
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> stop talking
>
>
>
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
>
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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