What's missing is that queueing in this context is only relevant on a
per-interface basis. For instance, if you turn on custom queueing on an
interface, all the 16 queues belong to that interface. It would not be
possible--nor would it make sense--to split up those queues between
interfaces. Queueing only comes into play when a single interface
becomes congested and it allows the prioritization of certain traffic at
the expense of other traffic. That wouldn't be the case here.
In the original post, "priority traffic" simply referred to the
importance of that traffic relative to other traffic, it was not a
reference to queueing. They want the higher priority traffic to take
the T-1 and have the rest of the slobs checking stocks or looking up
scores on www.espn.com to go out the DSL line.
I hope that was fairly clear. I'm a little foggy this morning.
John
>>> "Stephen Skinner" 4/12/01 4:33:06 AM >>>
OK.
i`m still studying so i may well be WAY-OFF the mark here ...but John
says
>| Solution will entail two internet connections, a T1 and a DSL.
Routing
> >will
> >| be configured such that priority traffic will use the T1
connection,
>and
> >| ordinary internet browsing will use the DSL connction.
?????
you would need to define "priority traffic" and then assign a high
prioirty
queue ....then assign that to an interface.....assign the rest of the
traffic to another queue on the other (DSL) interface..
you know i think that`s the solution but i am begginging to doubt
myself...i
swear i am missing something very basic and will be laughed at but
hey......
i can always change my e-mail address...
best regards
steve
>From: "Chuck Larrieu"
>Reply-To: "Chuck Larrieu"
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Design Challenge - a bit off topic [7:195]
>Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 19:06:13 -0400
>
>My DE and I were practically rolling on the floor with this one.
>
>Rule number one: the customer is always right.
>
>Rule number two: when the customer's head is where the sun don't
shine,
>refer to rule number one. ;->
>
>I agree with much of your assessment. Problem I have is that I work
for a
>telco, and sometimes what we in the data side are given is the result
of a
>telco account manager trying to meet T1 and DSL quota by making these
kinds
>of suggestions. Gullible customers then latch on to what has been
presented
>as a good idea. This RFI had all the markings of a telco-based
solution.
>
>I do have a question for you, based on something you stated below:
>
>Recognizing that you have two outbound interfaces - T1 and DSL, how
will
>custom queuing deliver the required packets to the appropriate
interface?
>
>Chuck
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf
Of
>Stephen Skinner
>Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 2:55 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Design Challenge - a bit off topic [7:195]
>
>Some interesting questions....
>
>me personally ....
>
>no-one has talked about restrictions of any sort ( a-la firewall)..so
lets
>say there isn`t ....just use 1 of 16 different custom queues ...not
really
>an effective tool fir this job but hey.....Design solutions it is ...
>
>I also don`t like the idea about this T1/DSL link stuff...i always
advise
>customers to have the same....."if you want to have a SEEMLESS service
>don`t
>skimp ......all things should be equal".
>obviously it wont be totally seamless as you will have a lot of info
going
>across 1 instead of 2 links...but it`s closer than DSL
>.....
>
>Questions for the customer??????
>
>would you like ME to design your network or would you like to do it
>yourself......being as i have years of experience and you have
none...
>
>JUST SLIGHTLY MORE POLITELY...
>
>then i would convince the customer that my way was best and had loads
of
>advantages and his way would lead to lots of scratching chins and
"ohhh i
>wouldn't`t have done it that way...Boss" by support engineers from
>whichever
>company he gets to support him as i won`t be going anywhere near his
>network
>if he can`t be bothered to listen....
>
>AGAIN just more politely
>
>HTH
>
>steve
>
>P.S that is no joke ....i have had to TELL customers that before
...they
>just won`t listen.....and i do still have my job
>
>
>
> >From: "John Neiberger"
> >Reply-To: "John Neiberger"
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: Design Challoenge - a bit off topic [7:195]
> >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 02:45:45 -0400
> >
> >Thoughts inline below....
> >
> >| Howard's comment brings to mind a problem my Design Engineer
raised
>when
> >| responding to a customer RFI.
> >|
> >| Howard's comment: . (Pause for usual mystification on why
someone
>wants
> >| routing protocols to pass through
> >| a firewall, a fairly frequent question).
> >|
> >| The customer RFI stated requirement ( wording as best as I can
>remember
> >):
> >| Solution will entail two internet connections, a T1 and a DSL.
Routing
> >will
> >| be configured such that priority traffic will use the T1
connection,
>and
> >| ordinary internet browsing will use the DSL connction.
> >|
> >| Lindy and I were having a real good laugh about the vagueness of
the
> >| requirement, when we decided to try to come up with a solution.
We
>came
> >up
> >| with a number of questions for the customer to elaborate upon,
and a
> >| possible solution. Would anyone else care to use this as a test
of
> >design
> >| issues?
> >|
> >| If memory serves, the customer defined "priority" traffic as
e-mail
>and
> >| connectivity to a certain external web site.
> >|
> >| So:
> >|
> >| 1) what are some of the questions the customer still needs to
|
> >answer?
> >
> >My first question to them would be "Do you really think that email
and
>that
> >one website alone justify a full T-1, while the rest of the
internet
> >traffic
> >for you company goes upstream on a measly DSL circuit?"
> >
> >Question #2: Do you desire some sort of fault-tolerance? Should
one
> >circuit be able to take over in case of a failure on the other? If
the
>T-1
> >fails and we move everything to the DSL circuit, do you care if we
> >completely squash the rest of your traffic if necessary to
prioritize the
> >email and web traffic formerly on the T-1?
> >
> >Question #3: Do you really need a T-1? Could you get by with
another
>DSL
> >circuit or a fractional T-1?
> >
> >|
> >| 2) What are some possible solutions to this requirement?
> >| ( assume the T1 and the DSL terminate on the same router )
> >|
> >
> >Question #4: Are these circuits coming from the same or different
> >providers? Do you have your own address space available? (silly
>question,
> >let's assume not ) If the answer is "different providers" then IP
> >address allocation and return-traffic paths become an issue. Let's
say
> >that
> >Provider A (T-1) issues a /27 and Provider B issues a /28. If we
NAT
> >internal addresses to only provider A's addresses--even for traffic
>leaving
> >toward Provider B--then all that return web traffic will come in on
the
> >T-1,
> >which kinda violates the spirit of the requirements.
> >
> >[Actually, upon further reflection, this is an issue even if the
circuits
> >are from the same provider. With two connections to the internet,
> >successfully manipulating traffic going both directions on both
circuits
> >can
> >be tricky.]
> >
> >So then, how do you decide who to NAT to which addresses?
> >
> >One solution to that problem is to check out a Fatpipe Xtreme or a
>similar
> >product by Radware that handles a lot of this for you. Pretty cool
>stuff,
> >we'll be getting the Radware box in the near future for just this
>purpose.
> >
> >On another routing issue, it appears that there will be a very
limited
> >number of destinations for traffic on the T-1 so one very simple
solution
> >would be static routes pointing out the T-1 and a default route
pointing
>to
> >the DSL circuit.
> >
> >Policy routing might also come in handy, I think, but it might be a
>bigger
> >hammer than is necessary. No need to complicate this if it doesn't
need
>to
> >be complicated.
> >
> >Is any of that the sort of thing you're looking for? You keep
catching
>me
> >late at night when I should be sleeping. I may not be thinking
clearly
> >enough to answer this.
> >
> >Regards,
> >John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________________
> >Send a cool gift with your E-Card
> >http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/
> >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>_________________________________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com.
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
>Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com.
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=339&t=195
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
