Hi, Can anyone help confirm my understanding on this topic?
My observation is that Per VC fragmentation, while it can be configured as when in the example below, is not very useful if not configured for all of the existing PVC that shared the same physical interface, isn't it? With the example below, only one of the VC (DLCI 100) is configured for fragmentation while the rest of the VCs (DLCI 200 & DCLI 300) that shared the same physical interface are not, then potentially outgoing fragmented frames from DLCI 100 could be waiting in queue while a fragmented large data frames from DLCI 200/DLCI 300 is being sent out. Am I correct? (REF: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios-xml/ios/wan_frly/configuration/12-4t/wan-mqc-fr-tfshp.html#GUID-BAC1F514-EBD4-48FF-87AB-41F2BF86463E ) Class-map voice match ip dscp ef policy-map llq class voice priority 32 policy-map shape-policy-map class class-default shape average 64000 shape adaptive 32000 service-policy llq map-class frame-relay shape-map-class frame-relay fragment 80 service-policy output shape-policy-map interface serial 0/0 encapsulation frame-relay interface serial 0/0.1 point-to-point ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0 frame-relay interface-dlci 100 class shape-map-class interface serial 0/0.2 point-to-point ip address 192.168.2.1 255.255.255.0 frame-relay interface-dlci 200 interface serial 0/0.3 point-to-point ip address 192.168.3.1 255.255.255.0 frame-relay interface-dlci 300 Regards, --Somphol
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com
