Two cents worth guys....
Warren
interface GigabitEthernet1/0/2
srr-queue bandwidth share 10 10 60 20 (When the expedite queue, queue
1 has a value other than 0 it is enabled. So this overrides both
shaping and sharing
for this queue on this port.
Queue 1 will always be serviced first until empty. Unlike shaping where
the queue is
limited to the amount defined,
sharing allows a queue to share unused buffer space from other queues if
available.)
Warren Heaviside wheav...@cisco.com
ENGINEER.CUSTOMER SUPPORT
Phone: +1 408 853 7995
Office Hour 9 am - 5 pm Pacific Monday - Friday
For corporate legal information go to:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html
-----Original Message-----
From: ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com
[mailto:ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com] On Behalf Of
ccie_voice-requ...@onlinestudylist.com
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 5:48 AM
To: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com
Subject: CCIE_Voice Digest, Vol 53, Issue 143
Send CCIE_Voice mailing list submissions to
ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_voice
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ccie_voice-requ...@onlinestudylist.com
You can reach the person managing the list at
ccie_voice-ow...@onlinestudylist.com
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CCIE_Voice digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Layer 2 QOS (Jeff Cotter)
2. Re: Layer 2 QOS (Matthew Berry)
3. Re: Layer 2 QOS (Miron Kobelski)
4. Re: First attempt (Ashar Siddiqui)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:21:48 -0700
From: Jeff Cotter <jcot...@voxns.com>
To: Daniel Berlinski <dberlin...@gmail.com>
Cc: "ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com" <ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com>
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Layer 2 QOS
Message-ID: <54cc1bd3093b6e41b86926c1657432f1a6264...@ssfex1>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Interesting......Thanks Daniel great thought!
From: Daniel Berlinski [mailto:dberlin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:03 PM
To: Jeff Cotter
Cc: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Layer 2 QOS
In my opinion this is done by adjusting the buffer size for queue 1 and
applying it to a queue-set. srr shape statement in my opinion means
nothing in relation to adjusting priority queue size.
http://onlinestudylist.com/archives/ccie_voice/2010-July/069398.html
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Jeff Cotter
<jcot...@voxns.com<mailto:jcot...@voxns.com>> wrote:
How would you enable the priority queue AND make sure queue 1 has 10% of
the bandwidth. The documentation states that if the priority queue in
enabled, shape and share configuration for that queue is ignored. So
how do you accomplish this without using Shape command.
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
please visit www.ipexpert.com<http://www.ipexpert.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
</archives/ccie_voice/attachments/20100729/df9a012e/attachment-0001.html
>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 21:44:46 -0500
From: Matthew Berry <ciscovoiceg...@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Cotter <jcot...@voxns.com>
Cc: "ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com" <ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com>,
Vik Malhi <vma...@ipexpert.com>
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Layer 2 QOS
Message-ID: <af0891c2-aa9c-44c3-8765-42b89b7d2...@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
So what's the answer? Vik/Amy - Opinions?
Matthew Berry
**Sent from my iPhone**
Skype/Twitter: ciscovoiceguru
Google Voice: +1 612 424 5044
On Jul 29, 2010, at 21:21, Jeff Cotter <jcot...@voxns.com> wrote:
> Interesting??Thanks Daniel great thought!
>
>
>
> From: Daniel Berlinski [mailto:dberlin...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 7:03 PM
> To: Jeff Cotter
> Cc: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com
> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Layer 2 QOS
>
>
>
> In my opinion this is done by adjusting the buffer size for queue 1
and applying it to a queue-set. srr shape statement in my opinion means
nothing in relation to adjusting priority queue size.
>
> http://onlinestudylist.com/archives/ccie_voice/2010-July/069398.html
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Jeff Cotter <jcot...@voxns.com>
wrote:
>
> How would you enable the priority queue AND make sure queue 1 has 10%
of the bandwidth. The documentation states that if the priority queue
in enabled, shape and share configuration for that queue is ignored. So
how do you accomplish this without using Shape command.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
please visit www.ipexpert.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
please visit www.ipexpert.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
</archives/ccie_voice/attachments/20100729/754404ed/attachment-0001.html
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 08:07:40 +0200
From: Miron Kobelski <findko...@gmail.com>
To: Daniel Berlinski <dberlin...@gmail.com>
Cc: "ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com" <ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com>,
Jeff Cotter <jcot...@voxns.com>
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Layer 2 QOS
Message-ID:
<aanlktindyfzz+xsschyf2x2n93knvekykjoooj9vp...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
agree. change threshold in order to limit it. once pq is enabled its
always
serviced first. shape doesnt apply. thats what vik said on the bootcamp.
regards
--
Sent from my mobile device.
On Jul 30, 2010 4:02 AM, "Daniel Berlinski" <dberlin...@gmail.com>
wrote:
In my opinion this is done by adjusting the buffer size for queue 1 and
applying it to a queue-set. srr shape statement in my opinion means
nothing
in relation to adjusting priority queue size.
http://onlinestudylist.com/archives/ccie_voice/2010-July/069398.html
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Jeff Cotter <jcot...@voxns.com> wrote:
> >
> > How would you enable the priority queue AND make sure queue 1 has
10% of
> the bandwidth. The doc...
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > For more information regarding industry leading ...
>
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
please
visit www.ipexpert.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
</archives/ccie_voice/attachments/20100730/c969b420/attachment-0001.html
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:47:59 +0100
From: "Ashar Siddiqui" <siddas...@gmail.com>
To: "'Daniel Berlinski'" <dberlin...@gmail.com>, "'CCIE Voice
GMAIL'"
<givemeccievoice2...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'OSL Group' <ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com>
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] First attempt
Message-ID: <000001cb2fe5$71899790$549cc6...@com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I don't buy that 0% theory that once they come to conclusion that you
can't
make it , they will start giving 0%...just a rumour I guess..
In my first attempt, I had few 0% spread across which means they graded
my
full lab otherwise they should have stopped at the beginning..
One more thing...If you get 0% in some section..it is all justified once
you
start looking into your solution from every angle..
Ash>
From: ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com
[mailto:ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com] On Behalf Of Daniel
Berlinski
Sent: 29 July 2010 23:15
To: CCIE Voice GMAIL
Cc: OSL Group
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] First attempt
I've heard this from Cisco employees as well that when the proctors
reach
the conclusion that the candidate cannot make it up the 80% they just
stop
the correction. This is something I will definetely ask whenever there
is
another ask the expert forum. By the way has anyone ever looked for
this
info in the ask the expert archives?
I know this forum is packed with Cisco staff. Can any of you clarify
this
for us?
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 7:29 AM, CCIE Voice GMAIL
<givemeccievoice2...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have heard this from a couple of people and even on this mailer. That
is
why I am bringing it up. I am not 100% sure if it is accurate or not.
From: ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com
[mailto:ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com] On Behalf Of Graham
Hopkins
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 12:09 PM
To: OSL Group
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] First attempt
I don't see how this can be correct, if it is it makes the report
meaningless. You could screw up a few early sections, fail on 79% and
still
have most of the report as 0. Of course as the score report is subject
to
NDA we'll never know.
Still Ohamien keep working on it and you will get there.
Graham
On 29 Jul 2010, at 19:59, CCIE Voice GMAIL wrote:
It's also important to note, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the 0's
don't
necessarily mean you configured that section incorrectly.
To my knowledge, once you lose more than 20 points, they simply stop
grading
your exam. So the later section may have 0's but you configured them
correctly.
I feel like this is a big problem with the already vague score reports.
I
wish they would change this. If you are paying $1400, you deserve a
full
report in my opinion.
From: ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com
[mailto:ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com] On Behalf Of Ashar
Siddiqui
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 11:25 AM
To: Ohamien Uhakheme
Cc: OSL Group
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] First attempt
I am sure you will figure out what mistakes you made which resulted in
0%.
I know its very hard to find out when you are sure your solution is 100%
but
believe me I have been through this and you will come to know how a tiny
mistake in that particular section or may be in some other section
resulted
in 0% for this section :)
I hope you pass in 2nd attempt. Don't forget to break down your scores
and
analyze exactly which question you lost points. That will help you to
work
out on specific areas.
Ash>
Ohamien Uhakheme wrote:
Hey guys --
I've been lurking for a while, so I figured that I'd chime in. I sat
for my
first attempt yesterday with less than passing results. Like other
people
have mentioned, it is heart breaking to see 0% in areas that you are
sure
that you nailed completely. It's cool though, I needed to get the
psychological first attempt out of the way, and I will probably schedule
again for early September.
IPExpert is spot on with their training material, and I definitely
appreciate the effort that has gone into it.
Thanks guys,
Ohamien
_____
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
please
visit www.ipexpert.com <http://www.ipexpert.com/>
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
please
visit www.ipexpert.com <http://www.ipexpert.com/>
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
please
visit www.ipexpert.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
</archives/ccie_voice/attachments/20100730/80180885/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
CCIE_Voice mailing list
CCIE_Voice@onlinestudylist.com
http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_voice
End of CCIE_Voice Digest, Vol 53, Issue 143
*******************************************
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit
www.ipexpert.com
