LLQ when the traffic exceed the configured Priority it gets dropped
R1#conf ter
Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z.
R1(config)#access-list 101 permit ip any any pre 3
R1(config)#class-map TEST
R1(config-cmap)#ma access-gr 101
R1(config-cmap)#exit
R1(config)#policy-map TEST
R1(config-pmap)#class TEST
R1(config-pmap-c)#prio 250
R1(config-pmap-c)#exit
R1(config-pmap)#int s1/1
R1(config-if)#serv out TEST
R1(config-if)#do show policy-map int s1/1
Serial1/1
Service-policy output: TEST
Class-map: TEST (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 250 (kbps) Burst 6250 (Bytes)
(pkts matched/bytes matched) 0/0
(total drops/bytes drops) 0/0
Class-map: class-default (match-any)
1 packets, 84 bytes
5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
Match: any
R1(config-if)#
R1#ping
Protocol [ip]:
Target IP address: 3.3.3.3
Repeat count [5]: 10
Datagram size [100]: 1000
Timeout in seconds [2]: 0
Extended commands [n]: y
Source address or interface:
Type of service [0]: 0x60
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 10, 1000-byte ICMP Echos to 3.3.3.3, timeout is 0 seconds:
..........
Success rate is 0 percent (0/10)
R1#show policy-map int s1/1
Serial1/1
Service-policy output: TEST
Class-map: TEST (match-all)
10 packets, 10040 bytes
5 minute offered rate 2000 bps, drop rate 2000 bps
Match: access-group 101
Queueing
Strict Priority
Output Queue: Conversation 264
Bandwidth 250 (kbps) Burst 6250 (Bytes)
(pkts matched/bytes matched) 10/10040
(total rops/bytes drops) 4/4016
Class-map: class-default (match-any)
15 packets, 1092 bytes
5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
Match: any
R1#
Thanks
--
Victor Cappuccio
www.vcappuccio.wordpress.com
On Feb 18, 2008 12:44 AM, Derek Winchester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> 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
>
