Hi everyone !
If I use CBWFQ and use the bandwidth percent in each class, and if I apply the policy to an ATM sub-interface which has a vbr-nrt vc with 294Kbps as the SCR, the calculated bandwidth is based on the SCR instead of the bandwidth statement of the sub-interface (the bandwidth statement is 256Kbps). The difference between the 294 and 256 is the atm cell overhead.
So far so good. However, why would the bandwidth percent base its calculation on the configured SCR as opposed to interface bandwidth ? The document at the following location mentions CBWFQ does not take the ATM cell header overhead into account for its calculations. Yet, the bandwidth percent seems to base its calculation on the SCR which includes cell overhead...Anybody encounteredthis problem ? That seems like it may be hard to use bandwidth percent because of this...
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk39/tk824/technologies_tech_not
e09186a00800942f5.shtml
