Re: MQC class-default

What's wrong with the statement?

"Better" weight doesn't necessarily mean "higher" weight. In this case
it rather means lower weight hence higher proportion.

Assuming user-defined classes have non-default IPP, this statement is perfect.

Swap
#19804

On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Kambiz Agahian <kagahian_at_ccbootcamp.com> wrote:
> Petr,
>
> Hadn't seen your article :) nice one. I'm afraid I can't agree only with
> this sentence " Notice that this behavior may seriously starve the
> "class-default" traffic, as all user-defined classes have significantly
> better weights compared to WFQ dynamic weights". Or probably what I
> understand from your explanation is not very accurate.
>
> --------------------------
> Kambiz Agahian
> CCIE (R&S)
> CCSI, WAASSE, RSSSE
> Technical Instructor
> CCBOOTCAMP - Cisco Learning Solutions Partner (CLSP)
> Email: kagahian_at_ccbootcamp.com
> 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
> OEQ Voice Waiver: http://www.ccbootcamp.com/noeqvoice.html
> OEQ R&S Waiver: http://www.ccbootcamp.com/noeqrs.html
> OEQ Commercial: http://www.ccbootcamp.com/noeq.mpg
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Petr Lapukhov
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 2:30 PM
> To: Bit Gossip
> Cc: ccielab
> Subject: Re: MQC class-default
>
> Hi,
>
> The behavior is different for CBWFQ and HQF to be accurate. CBWFQ is
> merely a WFQ extension and therefore all unclassified traffic is
> serviced using WFQ strategy, unless you assign an explicit weight to
> class-default. Notice that this behavior may seriously starve the
> "class-default" traffic, as all user-defined classes have
> significantly better weights compared to WFQ dynamic weights. You may
> read more at:
>
> http://blog.ine.com/2008/08/17/insights-on-cbwfq/
>
> As for HQF, it uses some round-robin (min-max type) based scheduling,
> which cisco never documented anywhere. By default, all unclassified
> flows are assigned to a single queue with 1% bandwidth reservation
> enforced by the algorithm. This prevents the starvation problem found
> in CBWFQ. Not to mention performance optimizations in HQF compared to
> CBWFQ.
>
> HTH,
>
> --
> Petr Lapukhov, petr_at_INE.com
> CCIE #16379 (R&S/Security/SP/Voice)
>
> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> http://www.INE.com
> Toll Free: 877-224-8987
> Outside US: 775-826-4344
>
>
> 2010/4/29 Bit Gossip <bit.gossip_at_chello.nl>:
>> Experts,
>> the below quote from DocCD MQC class-default:
>> "If no default class is configured, then by default the traffic that
>> does not match any of the configured classes is flow classified and
>> given best-effort treatment."
>>
>> 1) what does it mean: it is flow classified?
>> Maybe that within the class-default itself WFQ is used to fair treat
> all
>> flows in the class
>> 2) what does it mean best-effort in this context? that is served only
>> after all CBFQ are service?
>> Thanks,
>> Bit
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>
> 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
Received on Fri Apr 30 2010 - 15:39:37 ART