No sweat dude. I'll check the archives but my biggest question is what you answered. Output.
Now, regarding Prakash's comments on reserving bandwidth for the routing protocol - well in this case I suppose it ends up class default which is generally bad. IF there is congestion for enough time for 3 'hellos' to fail then the IGP goes down. But if the lab says configure it that way, what is one to do? Configure it right, or do what the lab says? I think we know I know the answer to that but I'd enjoy hearing your take. -Mike From: Adrian Brayton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 4:58 PM To: Michael Lipsey Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] QoS & Max-reserve-bandwidth Hey Michael, I hate to not answer your question but we just had a long discussion similar to this... Check the archives as of yesterday! If reading those dont answer most of your questions, please send any remaining questions you might have. But, there is something that you asked that wasn't brought up yesterday so I will try my best to help with that!! The queue-list... If you think about that for a moment, what is a queue... Something that is waiting to be transmitted, correct? You cant queue what somebody is sending you... You can police it, you can send them FECN and other methods are available but you cant queue it. So to make a long story short... No, a queue-list in NOT bi-directional and only applies to "output". HTHs a little! Here's a link... http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Its the 3rd and 5th discussion down! On Aug 13, 2009, at 7:30 PM, Michael Lipsey wrote: Changing this is bad right? I was working on Lab 3 in V2 of the BLS and I know they show doing task 8.1 with a queue-list but I wanted to try it differently. I did it in MQC: class-map match-all TELNET match protocol telnet class-map match-all HTTP match protocol http class-map match-all FTP match protocol ftp class-map match-all iIPV6 match protocol ipv6 ! ! policy-map Bandwidth class HTTP bandwidth percent 20 class FTP bandwidth percent 20 class IPV6 bandwidth percent 25 class TELNET bandwidth percent 15 Now, this works if you stick to the idea of 'available bandwidth' vs 'linespeed'. If it said set so-and-so to '20% of line speed' I would use a queue-list I guess and not mess with max-reserver-bandwidth. But it says 'bandwidth' so if I use mqc with this config on a 128k circuit I don't end up with enough available bandwidth to do it unless I mess with m-r-b. What's the difference if I do? Queue-list don't care so they don't reserver m-r-b for class default but MQC does. Also there is a lingering question I have: is a queue-list bidirectional? A service-policy would need to be applied inbound and outbound no? (It's too late in the game for me to be asking these dumb questions) So finally, this is what I ended up with: class-map match-all TELNET match protocol telnet class-map match-all HTTP match protocol http class-map match-all FTP match protocol ftp class-map match-all iIPV6 match protocol ipv6 ! ! policy-map Bandwidth class HTTP bandwidth percent 20 class FTP bandwidth percent 20 class IPV6 bandwidth percent 25 class TELNET bandwidth percent 15 interface Multilink1 ip address 110.99.96.5 255.255.255.252 ip bandwidth-percent eigrp 100 15 ip pim sparse-mode ip summary-address eigrp 100 4.0.0.0 254.0.0.0 5 leak-map 4and5 ppp multilink ppp multilink links minimum 2 mandatory ppp multilink group 1 max-reserved-bandwidth 100 service-policy output Bandwidth end Thanks guys -Mike _______________________________________________ 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
