Why not using shape to the average with the BE set to 0 ? to limit IPP3 to that subrate, since we only send BE when tokens available, but now with Shaping to peak we send every BE + BE every time interval resulting in a long run as (AvgRate * (1+Be/Bc)) So Why not BE = 0 in the case of average ? So what would be the value of the AvgRate to limit the resources to 256 kbps, :D
Just another thought Victor.- On Feb 18, 2008 1:37 AM, Scott Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Whether a queue exists or not is irrelevant. We're talking purely about > transmission rates to not exceed a certain value. So a peak rate is a do > not exceed value. Whether traffic ARRIVED more than could be sent and is > waiting in a queue doesn't affect the tranmission speed which is what you > wanted to measure. > > HTH, > > Scott > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Derek Winchester [mailto:dswinchesterbuwinchester1.com<[EMAIL > PROTECTED]>] > > *Sent:* Sunday, February 17, 2008 6:54 PM > *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Shape vs Police question > > Could you elaborate a little bit. I was under the impression that shape > and police functionality was very similar except that you queue via the > shape and you drop via the police. Now if you were to configure an action to > shape without the peak there is not burst beyond the cir but there will be > queuing just the same. If i do not configure the shape peak will it not take > the cir as the peak value by default. I could be wrong, what do you think > Scott? > > On 2/17/08, Scott Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > It's not the "normal" way of looking at it, but you could certainly use > > the > > "shape peak" feature within MQC to achieve that goal. While the main > > focus > > is to shape, it will also provide a "do not exceed" value that serves > > kind > > of as a limit! > > > > HTH, > > > > > > Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, > > JNCIE-M > > #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al. > > CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER > > VP - Technical Training - IPexpert, Inc. > > IPexpert Sr. Technical Instructor > > > > A Cisco Learning Partner - We Accept Learning Credits! > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 > > Fax: +1.810.454.0130 > > http://www.ipexpert.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Derek > > Winchester > > Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 6:23 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Shape vs Police question > > > > 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 > -- Victor Cappuccio www.vcappuccio.wordpress.com
