From: Gyo (Gabor.Gyori@xxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jul 06 2002 - 16:18:59 GMT-3
As it was discussed short before under CAR vs CBWFQ subject,
CAR is tool to restrict (force)
CBWFQ is the tool to ensure (provide)
certain policy.
So in ordet to restrict a kind of traffic not to cinsume more than a given
bandwith, use CAR.
Gabor
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John White [mailto:jan_white7@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2002 8:07 PM
> To: elpingu@acedsl.com
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Dlsw queueing methods
>
>
> That's fine. But which queueing method would you use, to
> restirict dlsw to
> certain maximum bandwith? Is it custom queueing or
> policing-CAR. I'm really
> confused on issue
> Jan
>
>
> >From: elping <elpingu@acedsl.com>
> >Reply-To: elping <elpingu@acedsl.com>
> >To: John White <jan_white7@hotmail.com>
> >CC: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> >Subject: Re: Dlsw queueing methods
> >Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 11:56:41 -0400
> >
> >I was confused by this as well:
> >to make it simple use
> >
> >only spcify port 2065 for dlsw...
> >
> >the other ports are used if you used priority
> >
> >John White wrote:
> >
> > > Hi guys,
> > > I'm new to the group, so I started browsing archives
> recently. There is
> >a
> > > lot good stuff there.Some questions though seems to never recive
> >answers.I
> > > guess people use their privite e-mail accounts, instead
> of list.I notice
> >,
> > > that in May 2002 there was discusion going on regarding bandwith
> >allocation
> > > for DLSw . The question was which method to use in order
> to allocate
> >DlSw no
> > > more than 30% of interface bandwith. (token or ehternet).
> Is it custom
> > > queueing or CAR or CBWFQ?.Does it require to specify all
> 4 ports for
> >traffic
> > > or not (2065, 1981,1982,1983)
> > > Thanks in advance
> > > Jan
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:20 GMT-3