Re: Priority Queuing Doubt

The output interface transmit low level buffer.
If you can, policing is better done at input, so you don't waste
resources on will-go-trash packets, but you can do it on output too.

-Carlos

Ccieyarub @ 25/06/2011 16:08 -0300 dixit:
> Hi
> Sorry when u said the TX Ring you mean the input or output ? I thought the policing is always done on Input/ingress ??
> Thanks so much
>
>
> On 2011-06-25, at 10:49 AM, Carlos G Mendioroz <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar> wrote:
>
>> Both will work, so the smaller one mandates.
>> There's a difference though: the explicit policer works all the time,
>> but implicit one only works when the high level queueing is engaged,
>> i.e. when the tx ring of the output interface fills up.
>>
>> -Carlos
>>
>> Routing Freak @ 25/06/2011 09:45 -0300 dixit:
>>> Hi fellows,
>>> When i give a priority command it is a low latency queuing and there is a in
>>> built policing in priority command
>>> priority 4500
>>> it is like voice packet gets policed to 4500 bits
>>> but when there is explicit policing configured , which will take precedence,
>>> whether the police command or th epolice command
>>> priority 4500
>>> police cir 5000 1000 1000 conform transmit exceed drop
>>> Can someone give me an better example for this and explain this feature
>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>> Subscription information may be found at: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>> --
>> Carlos G Mendioroz <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI Argentina
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

-- 
Carlos G Mendioroz  <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar>  LW7 EQI  Argentina
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net