From: gladston@br.ibm.com
Date: Wed Jul 27 2005 - 14:38:41 GMT-3
CBWFQ seems to have a better result, compared to PQ. Agree?
destination 148.5.2.1 goes through FRTS with LLQ.
destination 148.5.3.1 goes through FRST with PQ.
BB2#ping 148.5.2.1 size 1500 rep 100
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 100, 1500-byte ICMP Echos to 148.5.2.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (100/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 24/122/132 ms
BB2#ping 148.5.3.1 size 1500 rep 100
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 100, 1500-byte ICMP Echos to 148.5.3.1, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!.!!!..!!!.!!
!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!.!!.!.!!!!!!!!
Success rate is 91 percent (91/100), round-trip min/avg/max = 64/103/192 ms
BB2#
Config:
policy-map Priority-under-Shaping
class Priority-under-Shaping
priority 128
!
interface Serial0/0
bandwidth 512
ip address 148.5.235.5 255.255.255.0
encapsulation frame-relay
no fair-queue
frame-relay traffic-shaping
frame-relay map ip 148.5.235.2 502 broadcast
frame-relay map ip 148.5.235.3 503 broadcast
frame-relay interface-dlci 502
class Shaping-for-R2
frame-relay interface-dlci 503
class Shaping-for-R3
no frame-relay inverse-arp
!
map-class frame-relay Shaping-for-R2
frame-relay cir 128000
frame-relay bc 16000
frame-relay mincir 128000
service-policy output Priority-under-Shaping
!
map-class frame-relay Shaping-for-R3
frame-relay cir 128000
frame-relay bc 16000
frame-relay priority-group 5
!
priority-list 5 protocol ip high list 131
priority-list 5 default low
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Sep 04 2005 - 17:00:31 GMT-3