John Neiberger wrote: > > ""JM"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > I have Internet connection to IPS and I don't know what QoS > politic to > > choose. > > I have now 4 classes and CBWFQ: > > gold ( SMTP , POP 3) etc. > > silver HTTP > > bronse ( FTP) > > default ( fail-queue) > > and service-policy out. > > Is there any sense to use CBWFQ on a serial interface like > service-policy > in > > ? > > My ISP can't mark or shape my traffic. > > What is it the best QoS solusion for input traffic ? > > Thanks a lot. > > JM > > Others might disagree but I see no advantage whatsoever to > using QoS > mechanisms on the link going to your ISP.
Would it depend on the bandwidth of his circuit? WFQ is on by default for speeds of E1 and less. Perhaps that's all he needs if he has a low-speed circuit. He probably doesn't need anything special if the circuit is higher speed. For low-speed, he could at least prioritize the order of packets sent (and possibly dropped) by his own router. He should check the circuit speed and load to see if he needs to do anything. Also, it would be silly to make SMTP and POP3 highest priority in many environments. Is there a local e-mail server for SMTP and POP3? If yes, the clients are sending and receiving locally. The server also sends SMTP traffic to servers on the Internet probably, but if that gets congested, the server will simply try again. There's no user waiting around for this. In most cases, server-to-server delays aren't noticeable by users. But if the e-mail server is offsite, then maybe it makes sense to prioritize SMTP and POP3. _______________________________ Priscilla Oppenheimer www.troubleshootingnetworks.com www.priscilla.com > Once you hand off > traffic to them > you're completely at their disposal. You have no control over > traffic > within their network so why even bother adding queueing to your > outgoing > interface? If your link is congested often enough that you > feel it's > necessary I'd suggest getting another circuit installed, if > that's possible. > > Incoming I'd think that CAR would be useful depending on what > you're really > trying to accomplish. It would at least allow you to classify > traffic based > on your own criteria and then mark it for special handling > within your > network. All of this really depends on your specific situation > and your > goals. > > John > > Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=55582&t=55546 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
