But P.G Guide did not use any priority queue (LLQ) instead it just used CBWFQ.
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Carlos Valero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since LLQ is based on CBWFQ (configuration wise), there are basically no > practical differences between LLQ and CBWFQ. > > Many consider LLQ a special case of CBWFQ. I see it that way too. > > As you know, the only difference is that LLQ uses the "priority" keyword > instead of "bandwidth" > > Of course there are a few functional differences between these 2 options. > > But my point is that in many cases these 2 terms are used interchangeably. > > Therefore, if the Lab states "convert priority queueing to CBWFQ", I would > take it as LLQ. > > > CV. > > --- On Thu, 6/12/08, Suresh Mishra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Suresh Mishra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] LAB 17 task 7 > To: "Scott Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "OSL CCIE Routing and Switching > Lab Exam" <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, June 12, 2008, 3:45 PM > > Hello all, > > This task requires that we convert priority queueing to CBWFQ. Well it > does not say that we need LLQ. > > P.G guide uses CBWFQ as well. However, I would assume that LLQ would > be the right migration for priority queuing. CBWFQ would be good for > custom queuing. > > > > > Thanks > Suresh >
