In regards to llq I believe that it wont limit but guarantee the bandwidth so you can spike above the configured amount if available.
On 2/17/08, Victor Cappuccio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Derek, > > I heard this question before, I would agree on your answer, but what about > also using, LLQ within a CBWFQ, in addition of that priority queue is > serviced with a strict priority scheduler in which I do not see any , and in > the event of congestion, if the priority queue traffic exceeds the bandwidth > guarantee, a congestion-aware policer is used to drop the exceeding traffic. > > Just a thought > Thank > > -- > Victor Cappuccio > www.vcappuccio.wordpress.com > > > On Feb 18, 2008 12:23 AM, Derek Winchester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Someone asked me a very good question yesterday and I am still > > confused if I gave him the correct answer. He gave me a scenario that > > states that he has to limit all IP Precedence 3 traffic out of an > > interface to 256k, but he cannot use policing or rate-limiting. My > > answer was to use shaping. But from my experience, doesn't the word > > "limit" negates that as a possible answer? Even though you can use > > shaping to limit, I was always under the impression when studying for > > the CCIE that if they use the word limit that means no shaping. Can > > someone help ease my conscience? > > > > > > -- Derek S. Winchester www.myprofessorvoip.com www.winchester1.com www.derekspeaks.org
