From: Nick Shah (nshah@connect.com.au)
Date: Sat Sep 14 2002 - 19:24:47 GMT-3
* priority dlsw uses 1981, 1982, 1983, 2065, so either Dmitry's method or
Warren's method can be implemented to include them
* A correct method is 'not' to use 1981, 1982, 1983 in 'non-priority' DLSW,
imho, they will be considered wrong.
rgds
Nick
----- Original Message -----
From: warren perrett <warrenperrett@hotmail.com>
To: <dmitry_volkov@ca.ml.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 14, 2002 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: queue list for DLSW (search - just GREAT !!!)
> There seems to be two ways to tie the ports to a queue the way you have
> below or :
>
>
>
> (config)#queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 tcp 2065
>
> (config)#queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 tcp 2067
>
> Have a look at the text when you issue a ? after the ip 1 see below
>
> (config)#queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 ?
>
>
>
> tcp Prioritize TCP packets 'to' or 'from' the specified port
>
> udp Prioritize UDP packets 'to' or 'from' the specified port
>
> As it says here 'to' or 'from' the port, I think either way is valid , as
> usual the qestion is which way is the cisco way :)
>
> My SNA notes refer to the method above
>
> I would agree your ACL covers all DLSW ports inc 1981,1982, and 1983 if
> you issuse the priority command. If you don't issue the priority command
> only 2065 is used , but should you inc 1981,1982,1983 for completeness ?
>
> On one hand it would do no harm but on the other the examiners may feel
> your just guessing . What should you do ? I don't know I'm afraid.
>
> In that instance I would have to ask the proctor and explain my thoughts.
>
>
>
> >From: "Volkov, Dmitry (Toronto - BCE)" >Reply-To: "Volkov, Dmitry
> (Toronto - BCE)" >To: "'ccielab@groupstudy.com'" >Subject: queue list for
> DLSW (search - just GREAT !!!) >Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 17:33:03 -0400 >
> >Some time ago Sasa Milic posted about "protocol dlsw" in "queue-list 1
> >protocol dlsw"
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200205/msg01804.html
> >"protocol dlsw" can be used only with FST encapsulation. - Can somebody
> else >confirm that ?! >If you use TCP, then you have to use access-list
> to identify port(s) > >What is the common opinion with you: > >Will this
> access list cover all TCP DLSW (including priority) ? " > >access-list
> 100 permit tcp any eq 2065 any >access-list 100 permit tcp any any eq
> 2065 >access-list 100 permit tcp any any eq 2067 >access-list 100 permit
> tcp any any eq 1981 >access-list 100 permit tcp any any eq 1982
> >access-list 100 permit tcp any any eq 1983 > >Thanks, > >Dmitry
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:43:52 GMT-3