Re: LLQ

Summary

so we can say that :

1- its based on the IOS ver or IOS XR , & also the H/W (CRS-1, GSR,
ASR...6500) & last thing the schedualr algorithm,,,,if its CBWFQ, DRR or
MDRR (alternate - strict).
 it may be congestion aware or not...Its better for the engineering
department to test it before implementation.

In IOS XR, u may enable LLQ via priority cmd,only without configuring a
percentage for BW, but policing is a must as not to starve the interface BW
(IOS XR supports MDRR on GSR & CRS-1....ect).....and here comes that even if
there is no conguestion it will police.
this is based on testing for IOS XR (attatched before)

* *

policy-map *OC12-OUT* **

class VOIP

*police* rate percent 45 <<<<<<<<<<<<Policing enabled even if there is no
conguestion, it will dropp

conform-action transmit

exceed-action drop

*priority <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<LLQ enables
*

!

class Video-Sig

Bandwidth percent 10

random-detect exp 4 6 ms 18 ms

!

2- If the LLQ is conguestion aware in your OS (IOS ), you must be very
careful, as if at any time other classes request its guaranteed BW your VOIP
traffic will get drop randomly affecting most of VOIP calls.
TO better control this use CAC to control VOIP traffic from the source.

3- to confirm that this problem wont happen(point # 2 ), you may as Narbick
said use *priority <percent> + policing config *,
i didnt use it before, as the IOS priority command police
automaticly....*which
seems to varry between diffrent IOS ver.*

*
*

*in most IOS ver, LLQ actually **polices **the Queue based on the configured
bandwidth by Default.*

 By doing so, the packets in the queue that are forwarded still have very
low latency, but LLQ also prevents the low-latency traffic from consuming
more than its configured amount of bandwidth.

 By discarding excess traffic, LLQ can still provide bandwidth guarantees to
the non-priority queues. no additional policing configuration is required.

The *priority *command sets the guaranteed minimum bandwidth, which is also
the maximumbandwidth!

As mentioned earlier, LLQ polices the traffic in a class that uses the
*priority
*command and discards excess traffic.

so guys kindly adjust this summary, based on your testing so we can all have
some conculusions in common.
Thanks in advance
B.Regards
Ahmed Elhoussiny

On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Tony Varriale
<tvarriale_at_flamboyaninc.com>wrote:

> If you look at my other email, you'll see my config and the priority queue.
> Also, my testing shows the same as Ron's. Look at his email too. It's a
> strict priority queue. The output even shows it.
>
> It's quite funny that you wanted to clarify something for me? A CCIE
> aspirant?
>
> I assure you, you do not want to compare tales of the tape with me. You
> will be sadly mistaken and lose. So, don't go there.
>
> tv
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Edison Ortiz
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 3:18 PM
> To: 'Cisco certification'
> Subject: RE: LLQ
>
> As always Tony, you have not shown anything.
>
>
>
> You are one of the reasons I don't bother even posting on this forum and I
> really don't know what I was thinking when I replied to you.
>
>
>
> But, the subject was quite interesting and I felt obligated to clarify some
> doubts for CCIE aspirant.
>
>
>
> Let's see some output from your testing instead of stating that someone's
> comments are incorrect without any evidence other than your words.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Edison Ortiz
>
> Routing and Switching, CCIE # 17943
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Tony
> Varriale
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 4:07 PM
> To: 'Cisco certification'
> Subject: RE: LLQ
>
>
>
> I already did and it shows your comment as incorrect.
>
>
>
> tv
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>
> Edison Ortiz
>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:55 PM
>
> To: 'Cisco certification'
>
> Subject: RE: LLQ
>
>
>
> My test was done in IOS - 12.4T
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I guess it was not sufficient for you?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You can test yourself and verify if someone's post is not enough.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Edison Ortiz
>
>
>
> Routing and Switching, CCIE # 17943
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Tony
>
> Varriale
>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 3:36 PM
>
> To: 'Cisco certification'
>
> Subject: RE: LLQ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think based on SOME of the testing that's been posted here that's not
>
>
>
> necessary. Hence, my post for clarification.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Simply restating what the docs say is easy. Anyone tested this on IOS?
>
>
>
> Maybe try 12.4T and 12.4 mainline?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> tv
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
>
> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>
>
>
> Edison Ortiz
>
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:24 PM
>
>
>
> To: 'Cisco certification'
>
>
>
> Subject: RE: LLQ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "So from what I understand, the above text is saying that this
> rate-limiting
>
>
>
> will only take place under interface congestion; thus if the interface is
>
>
>
> not congested the priority queue is not really a policer, and might take
>
>
>
> more than what is configured with the priority command."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Correct. If you want to police a class with LLQ under all conditions
>
>
>
> (congestion or not) - as Narbik noted add the police command under that
>
>
>
> class as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Edison Ortiz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Routing and Switching, CCIE # 17943
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: karim jamali [mailto:karim.jamali_at_gmail.com]
>
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 3:17 PM
>
>
>
> To: Edison Ortiz; Cisco certification
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: LLQ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Experts,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Quote from Petr's post Insights on CBWFQ on the following link:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/08/17/insights-on-cbwfq/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If you have priority bandwidth configured in your policy map, subtract this
>
>
>
> value from total interface bandwidth to yield the amount of bandwidth
>
>
>
> available to other classes. The priority queue is only rate-limited under
>
>
>
> interface congestion, and in such case, it cannot get more bandwidth than
>
>
>
> configured with priority statement.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> So from what I understand, the above text is saying that this rate-limiting
>
>
>
> will only take place under interface congestion; thus if the interface is
>
>
>
> not congested the priority queue is not really a policer, and might take
>
>
>
> more than what is configured with the priority command.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank You Edison for the testing!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Edison Ortiz <edisonmortiz_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't have the original testing at the moment but I quickly pull up a
>
>
>
> scenario.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R2 <----> R0 <----> R3
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R0 will LLQ traffic from R2 towards R3 - for this example, I lowered the
>
>
>
> priority to a minimum value to observe any drops with a simple ping (size
>
>
>
> 1500 bytes).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R0 config:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> class-map match-all EF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> match ip dscp ef
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> !
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> !
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> policy-map WAN_QOS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> class EF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> priority 9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> !
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R0#sh policy-map interface
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> FastEthernet0/1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Service-policy output: WAN_QOS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Class-map: EF (match-all)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 0 packets, 0 bytes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Match: ip dscp ef (46)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Queueing
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Strict Priority
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Output Queue: Conversation 264
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bandwidth 9 (kbps) Burst 225 (Bytes)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (pkts matched/bytes matched) 0/0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (total drops/bytes drops) 0/0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Class-map: class-default (match-any)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 1 packets, 74 bytes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Match: any
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Generate some traffic from R2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R2#ping
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Protocol [ip]:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Target IP address: 10.1.1.2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Repeat count [5]: 10000
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Datagram size [100]: 1500
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Timeout in seconds [2]:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Extended commands [n]: y
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Source address or interface:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Type of service [0]: 0xB8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Set DF bit in IP header? [no]:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Validate reply data? [no]:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Data pattern [0xABCD]:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[none]:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sweep range of sizes [n]:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Type escape sequence to abort.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sending 10000, 1500-byte ICMP Echos to 10.1.1.2, timeout is 2 seconds:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On R0:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> R0#sh policy-map interface
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> FastEthernet0/1
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Service-policy output: WAN_QOS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Class-map: EF (match-all)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 697 packets, 1055258 bytes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 5 minute offered rate 27000 bps, drop rate 1000 bps
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Match: ip dscp ef (46)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Queueing
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Strict Priority
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Output Queue: Conversation 264
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bandwidth 9 (kbps) Burst 225 (Bytes)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (pkts matched/bytes matched) 2/3028
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (total drops/bytes drops) 2/3028
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You will notice some drop rate on the output and some drop was noticed on
> R2
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> but the flow was not completely dropped like a policer.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Let's test with a policer..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On R0:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> class-map match-all EF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> match ip dscp ef
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> !
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> !
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> policy-map WAN_QOS
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> class EF
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> police 9000
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On R2:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ..........................
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Feel free to perform your own test as well.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Edison Ortiz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Routing and Switching, CCIE # 17943
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Tony
>
>
>
> Varriale
>
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 2:23 PM
>
>
>
> To: 'Cisco certification'
>
>
>
> Subject: RE: LLQ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm aware of what the docs say. I thought this was discussed here and
> found
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> that anything over the priority statement was dropped. I could be
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> remembering incorrectly.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you have any of your testing that you care to share publically?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Tony Varriale
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Flamboyan, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> C: 630.546.7610
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> F: 815.717.9436
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> tvarriale_at_flamboyaninc.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Edison Ortiz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 12:32 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cc: 'Cisco certification'
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Subject: RE: LLQ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The documentation and my testing say otherwise:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "When the device is not congested, the priority class traffic is allowed to
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> exceed its allocated bandwidth. When the device is congested, the priority
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> class traffic above the allocated bandwidth is discarded."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/qos/command/reference/qos_n1.html#wp1048
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 842
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Edison Ortiz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Routing and Switching, CCIE # 17943
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ahmed Elhoussiny
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 1:19 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To: Tony Varriale
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Cc: Cisco certification
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Subject: Re: LLQ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> if LLQ is used for VOIP, it will get dropped/policed in case
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> the traffic exceeds the LLQ size.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> And this in case there is congestion and same if there is no congestion.`
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> LLQ got nothin to do with congestion, this is based on IOS & IOS XR
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> features & also my testing while designing QOS for my Mobile operator.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In some references you may find LLQ congestion aware....but this didn't
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> successfully being implemented till now...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> WHY ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> simply imagine u have an LLQ class with 1 M , and no interface BW
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> congestion.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> VOIP traffic increased to reach 2 M, and no drops cuz of no congestion due
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> to not used BW on other classes...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SO what if the traffic in other queues increased, and reached its 100 %,
> now
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> the LLQ will decrease to reach 1 M, and all VOIP calls will get some
> packets
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> dropped which will affect most of VOIP calls...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hope this might help
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks & B.regards
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ahmed Elhoussiny,2x CCIE# 21988 (R&S-SP)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Network Consultant & Cisco Academy Instructor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Tony Varriale
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <tvarriale_at_flamboyaninc.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > I thought the priority queue won't use the general bucket when it's over
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > its
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > defined number? Hence, all packets will get dropped.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > tv
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > From: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Narbik Kocharians
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:20 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > To: Wouter Prins
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Cc: jack daniels; Cisco certification
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Subject: Re: LLQ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > If you like the voice traffic to get 1M and 1M ONLY, then, provide LLQ
> and
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Police that traffic at the same time. Very common.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Wouter Prins <wp_at_null0.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Hello Jack,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > What do you think would happen to the other traffic if the voice
> traffic
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > was
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > allowed to burst to 2M in a LLQ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Depending on whether the interface is congested or not, the traffic
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> would
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > be
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > dropped if it exceeds the bw you specify in the priority command. It's
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > sort
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > of a conditional policer. The traffic will not end up in the default
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > class.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > 2009/12/8 jack daniels <jckdaniels12_at_gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Hi guys,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > Please help me with the understanding of LLQ -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > If I have a link of 2 MB
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > and I reserve 1 MB for VOICE ( LLQ) the if voice exceeds 1 MB will it
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > be
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > droppped or be sent in default class.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Wouter Prins
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > wp_at_null0.nl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > CCIE #25628
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net <http://www.ccie.net/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > _______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Narbik Kocharians
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > CCSI#30832, CCIE# 12410 (R&S, SP, Security)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > www.MicronicsTraining.com <http://www.micronicstraining.com/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sr. Technical Instructor
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > YES! We take Cisco Learning Credits!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Training And Remote Racks available
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net <http://www.ccie.net/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > _______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Subscription information may be found at:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net <http://www.ccie.net/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > _______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Subscription information may be found at:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net <http://www.ccie.net/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net <http://www.ccie.net/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net <http://www.ccie.net/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net <http://www.ccie.net/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
>
>
>
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> KJ
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
>
>
>
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
>
>
>
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
>
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
>
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>