> so you have one ingress port ("the NAS"), 20 egress ports ("the clients").> > Egress port 1 fills up. > > What are you going to do? Flow-control (-> slow down 19 other ports) > or drop? Agreed, egress queuing and "flowcontrol send" seems logically flawed, but the NAS case I see cited is "flowcontrol receive" on the switch side. In this case, egress port pauses, backs up, and further traffic to it drops -- there's no reason I can see for this have any impact to other ports. In an edge-device (NAS, server, whatever) it seems far more likely that the -host- is what needs the pause (flowcontrol receive), not the switch (flowcontrol send). _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
