Just time-sensitive applications like voice, video, etc. It may help with the telnet traffic though.
""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > At 03:57 PM 11/2/01, VoIP Guy wrote: > >CB-WFQ (class-based WFQ) isn't enabled by default. It is started with the > >class-map (name), access-lists and policy-map (name) commands. It combines > >the best practicesof WFQ, WRED and proiority/custom queuing. It is highly > >customizable. You just create different policy-map's for the different > >types of traffic (RED data during congestion but not voice, give RTP from > >site A to site B priority, etc) > > Thanks for the info. It sounds like a good choice. > > > >If the original poster is just trying to pritorize only telnet traffic above > >all alse, there is absolutly no configuraton needed, cause WFQ is default > >below E1 speeds and telnet is by default already prioritized above all other > >traffic conversations. > > > >I was thinking the poster had other types of traffic like FTP, http, SMB > >traffic, etc., > > I think that was the case, but the default WFQ wasn't doing a good enough > job. > > > which is why the interleaving comes into play, (especially > >the FTP traffic). > >I can almost guess that Telnet traffic alone wouldn't > >starve any traffic out (around 23 bytes/packet or something like that) and > >interleaving it wouldn't touch it at all, since it's below the 80 bytes that > >interleaving would chop at on a 64k link. > > Telnet sends one character typed per packet by default! But it does get > padded, since it starts on Ethernet usually, to 64 bytes. > > But what's relevant is that interleaving could chop up the other (FTP, > etc.) large packets to reduce serialization delay. > > I've never heard of using it for something other than voice, though, have > you?? > > > >Furthermore, if the link is constantly backed up, I'd upgrade bandwidth, as > >queuing is only supposed to be used when there is intermittent congestion. > > That's for sure! > > Thanks > > Priscilla > > > >If I could type 90 words a minute, I'd write a book too :) > > > > > > > >""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > At 01:35 PM 11/2/01, VoIP Guy wrote: > > > >I would use CB-WFQ, over all the others because of the control you can > > > >create. > > > > > > > >Protrity queuing will "starve" out the other protocols if one is given > > > >priority over the others and it is busy. > > > > > > Yes, but Telnet may not be so busy that it would cause a problem. It's > >true > > > that priority queuing would always check for Telnet traffic first, but if > > > there isn't any Telnet traffic, then it would move on. Telnet sends > >traffic > > > as someone types. Now, I can type 90 words a minute (though not with much > > > accuracy) but a lot of people can't type that fast. ;-) > > > > > > Seriously, it would be a good idea to test to see if prioritizing Telnet > > > would cause a problem or not. It would depend on the number of users, > >their > > > usage patterns, and the applications they are using. > > > > > > > > > >Frame-relay Fragmentation (FRF.12) is an interleave and traffic shaping > > > >comand, and as such will minimize seialization > > > > > > The original message is long gone but I think he said he had 64-Kbps > >links, > > > so the serialization delay to send long packets (while Telnet waits) is > > > significant. > > > > > > >, but not prioritize. I would > > > >use it, but in concert with WFQ. > > > > > > WFQ would be enabled by default. I don't know about CB-WFQ though?? > > > > > > > > > >Steve Ridder > > > > > > > > wrote in message > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > I accidentally deleted the original post - ah well. > > > > > We have a similar problem here - which we are hoping to solve by > >moving > > > >the > > > > > unix box to where the users are :-) > > > > > However I assume you have users at the central site who are using it > >as > > > > > well. > > > > > > > > > > I suspect that your overall proportion of telnet traffic is probably > > > >pretty > > > > > low, so you could probably implement priority queueing to give your > > > telnet > > > > > traffic absolute priority with very little risk of locking out other > > > > > traffic. > > > > > However, it could just be that telnet packets are getting queued > >behind > > > > > large ftp packets and getting hit by a large latency - priority > >queueing > > > > > won't cause a telnet packet to preempt a large packet already on the > >wire > > > > > (which is probably just as well). > > > > > If priority queueing doesn't fix the problem, perhaps you should look > >at > > > > > some of the QoS techniques used to minimise latency for voice? For > > > > > example, frame relay fragmentation? > > > > > > > > > > JMcL (attempting to put into practice - even if vicariously - a voice > > > > > course done recently ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Forwarded by Jenny Mcleod/NSO/CSDA on 02/11/2001 02:25 pm ----- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Michael > > > > > Williams" To: > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > Subject: Re: Prioritizing > > > > > Protocols???? > > > > > Sent by: > > > > > [7:24959] > > > > > > > > > > nobody@groups > > > > > > > > > > tudy.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 02/11/2001 > > > > > 06:56 > > > > > am > > > > > > > > > > Please > > > > > respond > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > "Michael > > > > > > > > > > Williams" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with the other posters here. Let us know what those 1601 > > > support. > > > > > Priority queuing with work, but Weighted-Fair (which should, as the > >other > > > > > poster said, handle this already) is the best choice for this. > > > > > Weighted-Fair is setup in a way the high bandwidth traffic doesn't > >choke > > > > > small bandwidth applications (like Telnet). Otherwise Priority or > >Custom > > > > > queueing are your only other options..... (AFAIK) > > > > > > > > > > Mike W. > > > ________________________ > > > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > > http://www.priscilla.com > ________________________ > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=25132&t=24959 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
