Thanks Tyson Regards Anantha Subramanian Natarajan
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Tyson Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > I did make one mistake in my statement earlier. CS6 is the correct > marking, > I said precendence 7. > > Regards, > > Tyson Scott - CCIE #13513 R&S, Security, and SP > Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc. > Mailto: [email protected] > Telephone: +1.810.326.1444, ext. 208 > Live Assistance, Please visit: www.ipexpert.com/chat > eFax: +1.810.454.0130 > > IPexpert is a premier provider of Self-Study Workbooks, Video on Demand, > Audio Tools, Online Hardware Rental and Classroom Training for the Cisco > CCIE (R&S, Voice, Security & Service Provider) certification(s) with > training locations throughout the United States, Europe, South Asia and > Australia. Be sure to visit our online communities at > www.ipexpert.com/communities and our public website at www.ipexpert.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul > Stewart > Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 3:05 PM > To: Adrian Brayton > Cc: Cisco certification; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Security] ASA QOS > > I agree as far as the traffic source. However I think queue- > thresholding is relevant only for incoming traffic. So what we are > talking about is what happens between the control-plane and the tx- > ring. Packets generated by the cp for IGP traffic has internal tag of > pak_priority. This should go into a special queue and has the most > direct access to the tx-ring. > > > > On May 14, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Adrian Brayton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think the direction that you want to head in is "Control Plane"... > > > > > > On May 14, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Paul Stewart wrote: > > > >> Maybe priority queue is a misuse of the term. But my understanding > >> is that in IOS, there is a special queue for packets tagged > >> internally as pak_priority (all routing protocols except bgp). This > >> shields them from going to class-default and effectively gives them > >> access to the 100% - max reservable bandwidth. Therefore they get > >> priority to the tx-ring(but not necessarily cassified in the > >> priority queue I suppose?). I'm not sure how different the ASA is > >> in this regard. > >> > >> > >> > >> On May 14, 2010, at 11:41 AM, Brandon Carroll > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> I'd have to revisit this, because it's been some time since I've > >>> done anything with it, but I recall something from the old QOS > >>> class about the max-reservable bandwidth is defaulted to 75% of > >>> the link bandwidth so that routing protocols and other traffic can > >>> have a little breathing room. Like I said, I'll have to revisit > >>> this, but I think this may be the case. I don't think routing > >>> protocol traffic actually uses the "priority" queue on Cisco > >>> routers, unless you classify the traffic and put it there. > >>> > >>> Sorry if I'm off base here, just thinking out loud. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> > >>> Brandon Carroll - CCIE #23837 > >>> Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert > >>> Mailto: [email protected] > >>> Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 > >>> Live Assistance, Please visit: www.ipexpert.com/chat > >>> eFax: +1.810.454.0130 > >>> > >>> IPexpert is a premier provider of Self-Study Workbooks, Video on > >>> Demand, Audio Tools, Online Hardware Rental and Classroom Training > >>> for the Cisco CCIE (R&S, Voice, Security & Service Provider) > >>> certification(s) with training locations throughout the United > >>> States, Europe, South Asia and Australia. Be sure to visit our > >>> online communities at www.ipexpert.com/communities and our public > >>> website at www.ipexpert.com > >>> > >>> Platinum Solutions Group (PSG) provides high-end consulting > >>> services with a primary emphasis on Cisco's Data Center Solutions, > >>> Service Provider Solutions, Unified Communications and Security- > >>> enabled infrastructures. Be sure to visit > www.platinumsolutionsgroup.com > > >>> . > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On May 14, 2010, at 5:37 PM, Paul Stewart wrote: > >>> > >>>> I think this is not just an ASA thing. It seems that routing > >>>> protocol > >>>> traffic is always handled by the priority queue on a router as > >>>> well. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On May 14, 2010, at 3:06 AM, Anantha Subramanian Natarajan > <[email protected] > >>>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi All, > >>>>> > >>>>> Was reading through Chapter 11(QOS) on the Cisco ASA:All-in-One > >>>>> Firewall,IPS,Anti-X, and VPN Adaptive security appliance" book and > >>>>> inferring > >>>>> the below sentence from that > >>>>> > >>>>> "Certain critical keep-alive packets such as EIGRP hello packets > >>>>> are > >>>>> never > >>>>> dropped even if they are not prioritized in the shaped traffic" > >>>>> > >>>>> Have a question on that, > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) Is all protocols hello packets treated that way in Cisco ASA > >>>>> and > >>>>> if so, > >>>>> how Cisco ASA keeps track of that to have this exception. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks for the help > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards > >>>>> Anantha Subramanian Natarajan > >>>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
