Re: Policing in one class with LLQ

Hey Ryan,

I remember this too. This was the default behavior in some early flavors of
IOS.

Here is a doc that mentions this on the 7200s and others:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk543/tk757/technologies_tech_note09186a0080103eae.shtml

Look a little past the 1/2 page down to find mention of some early issues
...

When Cisco first came out with this command, it was 'dangerous' ... you have
the minimum and no more, you could not use more bandwidth if it was
available.

Now the behavior is much better. I also remember cases / bugs for when you
configured priority command and now that bandwidth was unavail for other
queues when the priority queue was not being used ...

Thank goodness that was all fixed!

.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Ryan West <rwest_at_zyedge.com> wrote:

> Dennis,
>
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > thanks to all for the advice...
> > >
> > > So if I understand it right...there is an internal policer..._but_ I
> > can
> > > also configure my own police command inside the LLQ class ?!
> > >
> > > Dennis
>
> I thought there was an option, maybe it's under another hardware platform,
> to explicitly set any excess priority to be policed, regardless of
> congestion. It was a single priority command that set the priority and
> police rate. Anyhow, the configuration that you described is priority with
> explicit policing rate. Here is a whitepaper if you want to give it a read.
>
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6558/white_paper_c11-481499.pdf
>
> I looked around through HQF and the functionality seems to be the same
> there as well.
>
> -ryan
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
Andrew Lee Lissitz
all.from.nj_at_gmail.com
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net