-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Nope, 

The only engineering you can do is at the cpe, where your traffic
goes out and comes in.

Thais makes that you at best can configure QOS at the BOTTLENECK,
that may be your remote office router.
If not applicable, than the agregation point (HQ) will be the next
best.

I still would say that you carefully analyse the traffic patterns and
look at the bottlenecks. That is the no 1 point to do business.

Martijn

- -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Julian Pentermann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Verzonden: dinsdag 21 januari 2003 6:58
Aan: "mjans001"
Onderwerp: Re: QOS on 2621xm [7:61353]


would the isp have to do anything or would i just impliment the qos
on my router?

Thanks for the help
- ----- Original Message -----
From: ""mjans001"" 
Newsgroups: groupstudy.cisco
Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 12:53 AM
Subject: RE: QOS on 2621xm [7:61353]


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> You may need to use Priority Queueing, and hardcode telnet High prio 
> based on an access-list.
>
> Normal traffic despools after telnet queue is empty. If you are sure 
> that there will always be bandwitfh left for other traffic, PQ will do 
> fine.
>
> That is one way of using it.
>
> >>>
> During transmission, PQ gives priority queues absolute preferential 
> treatment over low priority queues; important traffic, given the 
> highest priority, always takes precedence over less important traffic. 
> Packets are classified based on user-specified criteria and placed 
> into one of the
four
> output queues-high, medium, normal, and low-based on the assigned
priority.
> Packets that are not classified by priority fall into the normal 
> queue. Figure 7 illustrates this process.
>
> Congestion Management Overview
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/12cgcr/qos_c
/qcpart2/qcconman.htm
>
>
> Why Use Priority Queueing?
> PQ provides absolute preferential treatment to high priority traffic, 
> ensuring that mission-critical traffic traversing various WAN links 
> gets priority treatment. In addition, PQ provides a faster response 
> time than
do
> other methods of queueing.
>
> Although you can enable priority output queueing for any interface, it 
> is best used for low-bandwidth, congested serial interfaces.
>
> Considerations
> When choosing to use PQ, consider that because lower priority traffic 
> is often denied bandwidth in favor of higher priority traffic, use of 
> PQ
could,
> in the worst case, result in lower priority traffic never being
transmitted.
> To avoid inflicting these conditions on lower priority traffic, you 
> can
use
> traffic shaping or CAR to rate-limit the higher priority traffic.
>
> PQ introduces extra overhead that is acceptable for slow interfaces, 
> but
may
> not be acceptable for higher speed interfaces such as Ethernet. With 
> PQ enabled, the system takes longer to switch packets because the 
> packets are classified by the processor card.
>
> PQ uses a static configuration and does not adapt to changing network 
> conditions.
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> Martijn
>
> - -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Namens 
> Julian P
> Verzonden: maandag 20 januari 2003 9:02
> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Onderwerp: QOS on 2621xm [7:61353]
>
>
> Hi
>
>
> We would like to prioritize incoming traffic on our 256k internet link 
> to uunet .We need to give telnet at least 64k incoming bandwidth.
>
> Any ideas on the best way to do this ?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Julian
> Version: PGP 8.0
>
> iQA/AwUBPix7Bndq56XWk+VyEQJ+/ACfS2LZO44i+6Y+cRg37a/ApiovJtgAoLvz
> kS6ZvDnOtSXEqAAi/6u1v+p4
> =nXJB
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0

iQA/AwUBPi2VbHdq56XWk+VyEQIPOQCfTguOnPMduMdxWbRuzbadddit3esAn3/6
vmrK61ZimecTbrS2DXPX3Jwo
=FsQK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=61482&t=61353
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to