From: ying c (bf5tgh1@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 09:20:13 GMT-3
I used to think they are the same. But if you checked
them by 'show frame pvc <dlci #>, you will see the
first one include the queuing, but the second one does
not. Same applied to the priority queue.
--- Nick Shah <nshah@connect.com.au> wrote:
> Omer
>
> My thinking is that both should be the same. Ideally
> the packets are
> submitted to the physical interface for delivery
> (and hence queuing applied
> there should work).
>
> Thoughts ??
>
> Nick
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Omer Ansari" <omer@ansari.com>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 9:44 AM
> Subject: custom queuing under a frame interface
>
>
> > All,
> >
> > in the following, is "A" different from "B" ?
> > [assume queue list is same for both and only 2
> subifs]
> >
> > A
> > =====
> > !
> > interface Serial2/0
> > no ip address
> > encapsulation frame-relay
> > frame-relay traffic-shaping
> > !
> > interface Serial2/0.1 multipoint
> > ip address 165.10.1.4 255.255.255.0
> > frame-relay class cq <---------------
> > ...
> > !
> > interface Serial2/0.2 point-to-point
> > ip address 165.10.5.4 255.255.255.0
> > frame-relay class cq <-------------
> > ...
> > !
> > map-class frame-relay cq
> > no frame-relay adaptive-shaping
> > frame-relay custom-queue-list 2
> > !
> >
> >
> >
> > B
> > =====
> >
> > !
> > interface Serial2/0
> > no ip address
> > encapsulation frame-relay
> > custom-queue-list 2 <-------------
> > !
> > interface Serial2/0.1 multipoint
> > ip address 165.10.1.4 255.255.255.0
> > ...
> > !
> > !
> > interface Serial2/0.2 point-to-point
> > ip address 165.10.5.4 255.255.255.0
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Assuming the answer to above would apply to
> priority queue list also.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:43:55 GMT-3