Priscilla summed up what I was trying to get at rather well.
I just dug up the original post, and the original poster has a 56kbps link
- not even 64kbps.
"Whenever anyone sends a large print job, does a large FTP, or is browsing
the web it makes everyone else's telnet session at the remote site V
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 star
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
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
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 proble
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.
Frame-relay Fragmentation (FRF.12) is an interleave and traffic shaping
comand, and as such will minimize
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 traffi
Unfortunately, if you have WFQ setup, that should be the best solution for
your situation. So you can try Custom/Priority...
Oh well
Mike W.
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=25016&t=24959
--
FAQ, list archives
Thanks for the quick replies everyone!!!
It does look like weighted fair is set up on the 1601's. I will attach a log
file from my telnet session. So I guess that the priority or custom is the
way I want to go.
You were right about a ton of info on the Cisco sight. Looks like I've got
some readi
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 bandw
I'm not sure of the capabilities on those 1601s but I think you have at
least two options: Priority Queueing and Custom Queueing. Can those
things do Weighted Fair Queueing? If so, they already should be doing
an okay job with this.
Can the 1601s do policy routing? If so, you could create a r
priority queing. Keep in mind priority queing will drown out lower
priority traffic in deferance to the higher priority traffic period, it
doesn't like to share.
dave
Andy Davidson wrote:
>
> We have a network with one 2522 and 10 1601 routers set up in a hub and
> spoke arrangement. Our con
We have a network with one 2522 and 10 1601 routers set up in a hub and
spoke arrangement. Our connections are relatively small 56k Frame Relay.
My question is. Is there a way to give certain applications a higher
priority to the bandwidth available and have the other apps use what ever is
left ov
13 matches
Mail list logo
