Wouldn't that be an ABT? :-) John
>>> "Priscilla Oppenheimer" 10/31/02 1:40:24 PM >>> I like that: "acronym-based technologies." ;-) Priscilla "B.J. Wilson" wrote: > > > Just about the last phrase 'The "priority" > > command is not used with CBWFQ', > > considering that I call LLQ within CBWFQ, is > > it correct ? > > Well...you calling it "LLQ within CBWFQ" isn't Cisco canon, but > your config > below is a fine LLQ configuration. > > I've noticed (especially in my studies of QoS) that the only > differentiator > between acronym-based technologies (like LLQ and CBWFQ) is just > the addition > of one little command in an otherwise "old" config. > > BJ > > > > > > policy-map MyPolicy > > class Voice > > priority 200 > > class Silver > > bandwidth 200 > > class class-default > > random-detect > > fair-queue Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=56623&t=56519 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
