The config for the bottom of this page is correct for FRF.12 http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/788/voice-qos/voip-ov-fr-qos.html#first
Plus we're arguing about the same thing. If Tc=Bc/Cir, or Bc=CIR(Tc/1000) and we have Cir=256000 Tc=10ms Bc=? With your formula, you get 2560 and with mine you get 2560. Same thing. Just my original post is never use a blanket number to get Bc, cause the first one gave a large Tc. ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > No we all use ms, including Wendel Odom. > > > ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > Actually, that web page is correct. Tc = Bc/CIR, and the > > answer is in seconds. If you get an answer such as .125, that > > is 1/8th of a second, or 125ms. > > > > At work we use a Bc of 5120 on 512k links. 5120/512000 = .010, > > or 10ms, which is the recommended interval. It all depends on > > what units you're using, as well. Perhaps he is using > > different units of measurement. > > > > Regards, > > John > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Get your own "800" number > > Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more > > http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag > > > > > > ---- On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Steven A. Ridder ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > wrote: > > > > > I believe the true calculation for the interval (Tc) is Bc=CIR > > (Tc/1000). > > > This web page over-simplifies it. I have read in varoius > > sources > > > (Intergrating Voice and Data Network, and from Wendel Odom > > himself, that > > > it's actually the above calculation. I have other problem > > wih CCO web > > > pages > > > also, especially Dialer Watch, CBAC, etc. I think Cisco is > > too big to > > > manage :) > > > > > > > > > ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > I only see two examples on that page that are different. > > The first is > > > > on a 56k link, Bc=1000 and CIR=56000. Bc/CIR = .0178, or > > basically > > > > 18ms. I know that's higher than the recommended 10ms, but > > perhaps > > > there > > > > are drawbacks to lowering the Bc below 1000 that I'm not > > aware of. > > > > > > > > The other example is on a 256k link. Bc = 1000, CIR = > > 256000, so > > > > Bc/CIR = .004, or 4ms. This will set your Tc to the > > minimum of 10ms, > > > > IIRC. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > John > > > > > > > > >>> "Steven A. Ridder" 12/18/01 5:22:56 PM >>> > > > > The bc info for the Frame-Relay traffic shaping info on > > that page is > > > > wrong. > > > > One should always target Bc to get a Tc of 10ms, but the > > config > > > > examples are > > > > more like a Bc of 36.4. So you have the serialization > > delay time at > > > > 36.4, > > > > but optimally you want 10ms. The packets will be going out > > at 10ms > > > (or > > > > less > > > > cause fragmentation ias correct) but the time interval the > > router uses > > > > is at > > > > 36.4ms. > > > > ""John Neiberger"" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > Here is another link that deals with WAN QoS, including > > some items > > > > that > > > > > might not occur to you such as sizing the interface > > transmit ring. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/voice/ip_tele/av > > vidqos/qoswa > > > > > > > > n.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > HTH, > > > > > John > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=29627&t=29559 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
