Just remember: Don't always expect everything to be based on best
practices in regards to the CCIE. ;-)

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Suresh Mishra
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>>
>



-- 
Tyson Scott - CCIE #13513 R&S and Security
Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.

Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
Fax: +1.810.454.0130
Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Join our free online support and peer group communities:
http://www.IPexpert.com/communities

IPexpert - The Global Leader in Self-Study, Classroom-Based, Video On
Demand and Audio Certification Training Tools for the Cisco CCIE R&S
Lab, CCIE Security Lab, CCIE Service Provider Lab , CCIE Voice Lab and
CCIE Storage Lab Certifications.

Reply via email to