Hi, Am I wrong or the CBWFQ does allow you to strict priority a traffic class using the keyword 'priority' ?
Thanks, Alaerte "\"\"B.J. Wilson\"\"" @groupstudy.com em 30/10/2002 09:07:36 Favor responder a "\"\"B.J. Wilson\"\"" Enviado Por: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Assunto: Re: Queuing question(s) again ! [7:56519] Hi Manish - Regarding your questions about queuing: > Should I take it to mean that all queuing > schemes such is RTP and LLQ, which > use a variant of WFQ as their basis have > > (1) 'modified' one queue to be act as a HIGH > PQ, or if you like, System > Queue 0 in custom queuing, in that it has to be > drained first, before the > other queues get serviced or Yes, I believe this to be true. Keep in mind the "evolution" of queuing mechanisms: after WFQ came CBWFQ and PQ simultaneously (I think - someone correct my history if I'm mistaken). PQ is *too* strict, and not granular enough. CBWFQ is too loose, and cannot guarantee that a certain type of traffic will *always* get through. Enter IP RTP Priority, which states that RTP packets (usually voice) will *always* go through, and any other traffic type will be handled in a WFQ fashion. LLQ opens up the possibility of giving priority to other traffic types (not necessarily voice traffic), and then handling everything else in a bandwidth-based WFQ fashion. > (2) is it once again, a case of one queue > having a higher weight which means > more data gets sent, (but not all data), at > each pass. This is pure CBWFQ that you're describing here. HTH, BJ Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=56545&t=56519 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
