[j-nsp] Setting IP precedence-6 for HTTP traffic in aggregate-ethenet ae0.2 interface

[Mark Tinka]

On Monday, April 18, 2011 11:56:38 AM Dobbins, Roland wrote:

> Routers use these markings in order to reserve sufficient
> queue capacity to handle control-plane traffic even in
> the event of link saturation.  I can't think of a
> legitimate use-case for marking data-plane traffic as
> precedence 6/7, and there's an obvious argument per the
> above for not doing so, heh.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying that even 
user-configured values are valid and can work.

Is it more effort? Yes.

Is it prone to misconfiguration presently or in the future? 
Yes.

Is it best practice? Maybe, maybe not.

The point is, there's more than one way to make it work, and 
I'm almost certain some folks don't use the defaults (we 
do).

So if the OP decides to use IPP 6 for HTTP, probably because 
he's customized IPP <something-else> for routing protocols, 
it would still work. I probably wouldn't do it this way as 
it's more cumbersome, but I'm sure someone else might prefer 
to go this route.

Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/juniper-nsp/attachments/20110418/bd9c80d5/attachment.pgp>