You will not be asked that. That can not be done. Option 2 needs to be configured as traditional method. thanks, Ryan Trauernicht
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:17 PM, anil batra <anil...@yahoo.com> wrote: > What if we are to configure in the scenario I mentioned where it says > configure > > 1. HQ to BR1 we are to use MLP with LFI > > 2. HQ to BR2 we are to use FRF.12 with MQC-FRTS (CB-Shapping way) > > In the above scenario, on HQ major( Physica) interface is same. But as you > mentioned we should not apply "Frame-relay Traffic-shaping command" for > MQC-FRTS but we will have to apply for MLP. In another words the above > scenario should be avoided and we shoudl use Leagacy FRTS only for HQ to > BR2. > > That means MLP and MQC sharing same physical interface are mutually > exclusive. And hence we shoufl use HQ to BR1 we are to use MLP with LFI and > Leagcy FRTS for HQ to BR2 we are to use FRF.12 . > > -anil > > > > > > > > --- On *Tue, 1/13/09, Ryan Trauernicht <ryanstudyvo...@gmail.com>* wrote: > > From: Ryan Trauernicht <ryanstudyvo...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] QOS MLP 1 link and FRF Shaping the other > verification > To: anil...@yahoo.com > Cc: "Vik Malhi" <vma...@ipexpert.com>, "ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com" < > ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com> > Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 5:26 AM > > > You need Frame-relay Traffic-shaping command placed on the physical > interface (wha tI mean by that is Serial0/0........... NOT s0/0.101) So not > the PVC > when you use FRF.12 traditional way (aka cir, mincir, bc, be) and MLP. > > You do not put in on the physical interface when you use the CB Shaping way > for FRF.12 (aka nested policy-maps) > > > Thanks, > Ryan Trauernicht > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:49 PM, anil batra <anil...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 1. Let's say BR1 to HQ we are to use MLP with LFI but for BR2 to HQ we >> are to use FRF.12 Fragmentation. What I understand is we will use MLP with >> LFI between HQ-BR1 with NO "frame-realy traffic-shaping" command on major >> interface. Now on BR2 to HQ as we are supposed to use FRF.12 , in this case >> we will have to use Legacy FRTS for this link but not MQC-FRTS right ??? >> >> 2. I am little confused whe do you need to put "frame-realy >> traffic-shaping" command on major interface - >> >> MLP - I think NO >> Legacy FRTS - I think NO >> MQC-FRTS - I think YES >> >> regards // anil >> >> >> --- On *Tue, 1/13/09, Vik Malhi <vma...@ipexpert.com>* wrote: >> >> From: Vik Malhi <vma...@ipexpert.com> >> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] QOS MLP 1 link and FRF Shaping the other >> verification >> To: "Ryan Trauernicht" <ryanstudyvo...@gmail.com> >> Cc: "ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com" <ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com> >> Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2009, 4:16 AM >> >> >> You must do it the old school way if you are using a single physical >> interface. >> The old school way being FRTS as opposed to class-based shaping. >> >> Vik Malhi - CCIE#13890 >> Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert Inc >> >> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 >> Fax: +1.810.454.0130 >> Mailto: vma...@ipexpert.com >> >> Join IPexpert's Free CCIE Peer Groups & Study Communities >> atwww.IPexpert.com/communities <http://www.ipexpert.com/communities> >> >> On Jan 12, 2009, at 2:43 PM, "Ryan Trauernicht" >> <ryanstudyvo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I know when you put the "frame-relay traffic-shaping" on the >> physical interface it turns all the CIRs down to 56k. >> > >> > If you have 1 pipe that is MLP FRF which you need to put that command on >> the interface and the other pip is just shaping FRF. I just wanted to make >> sure >> you can not do the nested policy-map way. You must do it the old school >> map-class way for (cir, mincir, bc, be). >> > >> > Vik can you comment on that or anyone else who knows for sure. >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Ryan Trauernicht >> >> >> > >
