RE: set port level

From: Guoqi Cui (guoqicui@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri Sep 20 2002 - 15:13:46 GMT-3


Pags and Colin:

Thank you very much.

Guoqi
--- Colin Barber <Colin.Barber@telewest.co.uk> wrote:
> This is correct. The 3550 series have a non-blocking
> switching fabric and
> therefore packets are not delayed.
>
> Colin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paglia, John (USPC.PCT.Hopewell)
> [mailto:JPaglia@NA2.US.ML.com]
> Sent: 18 September 2002 22:18
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: set port level
>
>
> I don't believe this command exists on the 3550. It
> has a backplane that can
> handle more throughput than the ports can generate,
> thus it "doesn't need"
> port priority help.
>
> Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm off, but I'm almost
> positive.
>
> Pags
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Guoqi Cui [SMTP:guoqicui@yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 4:42 PM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: set port level
> >
> > Hi, group:
> > What is the corresponding command of "set port
> level
> > (cat5k)" in cat3550?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Guoqi
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
> > http://news.yahoo.com
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Live Life in Broadband
> www.telewest.co.uk
>
>
> The information transmitted is intended only for the
> person or entity to which it is addressed and may
> contain confidential and/or privileged material.
> Statements and opinions expressed in this e-mail may
> not represent those of the company. Any review,
> retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
> taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the
> intended recipient is prohibited. If you received
> this in error, please contact the sender immediately
> and delete the material from any computer.
>
>
>
==============================================================================



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Oct 07 2002 - 07:43:58 GMT-3