THe only reason I can see using QoS is to limit traffic to certain amouts of BW. Even then it's tricky becasuse in CBWFQ, you are guaranteing a minimum, not a maximum amout of BW for a class. You could police certain classes of traffic to never exceed a BW, but that can be crummy as well, espcially if there isn't congestion.
-- RFC 1149 Compliant. ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > John Neiberger wrote: > > > > ""JM"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I have Internet connection to IPS and I don't know what QoS > > politic to > > > choose. > > > I have now 4 classes and CBWFQ: > > > gold ( SMTP , POP 3) etc. > > > silver HTTP > > > bronse ( FTP) > > > default ( fail-queue) > > > and service-policy out. > > > Is there any sense to use CBWFQ on a serial interface like > > service-policy > > in > > > ? > > > My ISP can't mark or shape my traffic. > > > What is it the best QoS solusion for input traffic ? > > > Thanks a lot. > > > JM > > > > Others might disagree but I see no advantage whatsoever to > > using QoS > > mechanisms on the link going to your ISP. > > Would it depend on the bandwidth of his circuit? WFQ is on by default for > speeds of E1 and less. Perhaps that's all he needs if he has a low-speed > circuit. He probably doesn't need anything special if the circuit is higher > speed. For low-speed, he could at least prioritize the order of packets sent > (and possibly dropped) by his own router. > > He should check the circuit speed and load to see if he needs to do anything. > > Also, it would be silly to make SMTP and POP3 highest priority in many > environments. Is there a local e-mail server for SMTP and POP3? If yes, the > clients are sending and receiving locally. The server also sends SMTP > traffic to servers on the Internet probably, but if that gets congested, the > server will simply try again. There's no user waiting around for this. In > most cases, server-to-server delays aren't noticeable by users. > > But if the e-mail server is offsite, then maybe it makes sense to prioritize > SMTP and POP3. > > _______________________________ > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > www.troubleshootingnetworks.com > www.priscilla.com > > > Once you hand off > > traffic to them > > you're completely at their disposal. You have no control over > > traffic > > within their network so why even bother adding queueing to your > > outgoing > > interface? If your link is congested often enough that you > > feel it's > > necessary I'd suggest getting another circuit installed, if > > that's possible. > > > > Incoming I'd think that CAR would be useful depending on what > > you're really > > trying to accomplish. It would at least allow you to classify > > traffic based > > on your own criteria and then mark it for special handling > > within your > > network. All of this really depends on your specific situation > > and your > > goals. > > > > John Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=55601&t=55546 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
