Folks. You already may know it, but I'm sending just in case
Comparing the bandwidth and priority Commands of a QoS Service Policy http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/tech/tk543/tk757/technologies_tech_note09186a0080103eae.shtml# A doubt, if you want grant a class with LLQ without restricting its bandwidth, how come you don't use PQ? Priority Queueing http://www.cisco.com/en/US/customer/docs/ios/12_1/qos/configuration/guide/qcdpq.html Yours Truly. Murilo Pugliese Data communication engineer / IP Network Diveo do Brasil Telecomunicações Ltda. * Before print this message, ask yourself: Is it really necessary? Avoid waste of natural resources. Give your contribution to decrease the global warming issue. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Tantsura Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 8:51 AM To: 'Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)'; 'Tim Franklin' Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [c-nsp] QoS - questions Hi Oli, Thanks for your answers!!! Another question :) Migrating QoS config from 12K (12.0S) to 7200 (12.4T) I've found that configuration of LLQ class with "priority" without bandwidth keyword is not allowed anymore. Is this a trend we will see in later IOS releases? Thanks, Jeff P.S. Common, you are not that old, it's the feature sets growing more and more :) > -----Original Message----- > From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: dinsdag 21 augustus 2007 13:27 > To: Tim Franklin; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [c-nsp] QoS - questions > > Tim Franklin <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tuesday, August 21, > 2007 > 12:26 PM: > > > On Tue, August 21, 2007 10:36 am, Jeff Tantsura wrote: > > > >> class LLQ > >> priority "bandwidth" > >> policer would kick in only in case of congestion while in class LLQ > >> priority police "bandwidth" > >> policer would drop any traffic above the bandwidth specified. > > > > I'd go further than that - the behaviour I've seen to date, and > > would expect, is that in the first case even with congestion there > > is no policer. Rather the LLQ gets a proportionate share of any 'free' > > bandwidth above assigned minimum, just like any of the other CBWFQ > > queues. > > > > I've definitely pushed more than 'priority bandwidth' worth of > > priority traffic through a congested link before now. > > > >> Thanks in advance for clarification. > > > > Seconded, I'd like to know how this is *supposed* to work. > > Thanks for your input, made me look at the MQC specs again (and will > have to revise my statement made earlier.. guess I'm getting old ;-) > > the tocken bucket configured within the "priority" command is used to > tell if the router needs to guarantee low-latency for the packets. If > the traffic rate exceeds the configured rate, it will be sent right > away if the link is uncongested at the time of excess traffic arrival, > and will be dropped otherwise. I guess how this is exactly being > implemented is somewhat platform/queuing-infrastructure-dependant.. > Either way: You don't want to send more LLQ traffic than configured > there, otherwise you *might* drop packets. > > priority without any cir/bw argument can result in all bandwidth being > used by this class, so a policer confirmed in addition (the 2nd > example > above) would unconditionally drop packets above the configured > policer's rate. > > oli _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
