Name

FiFO PQ

Abbreviation for
First in First out

Method
No traffic classification. Packets flow one after the other. Traffic Classified and then scheduler services the high priority queue first compared to low priority queue.

Advantages
Simple and less processing involved.

Disadvantages

Applications

Priority Queuing

FQ

Fair Queuing

1-Simple and moderate processing. 2-Good for real time applications. Traffic Classified to different flows and traffic taken Bursty traffic can not take in round robin manner one by one. ( This avoids resources of the traffic in starvation of low priority traffic as in the case of PQ) other queues. ( this might happen in PQ)

Indiscriminate to class of services therefore Normal LAN applications not suitable if operator gives multiple class of service low priority queues can be starved if there is Best for real time excessive high Priority queue. applications like Voice and Video 1-Same bandwidth is assigned to all queues. Therefore not suitable if some traffic needs to take more bandwidth compared to others. 2-Not good for real time services. If packets in each queue has different length, one queue can take more resource since the bandwidth is counted in terms of number of packets Computationally complex to implement and calls for complex processing (Because it is a bit by bit processing) Since software based so slow and only suitable for edge nodes. Not suitable for Core router applications

WFQ

WRR or CBQ

Overcomes the problem of FQ. Provides guaranteed bandwidth to certain traffic flow. Also supports variable Weighted Fair Queuing length packets. Best then the others queuing methods in terms of providing guaranteed bandwidth. Traffic classified and weight is assigned to flows Hardware based and if the flows are of variable length, accurate Packets are taken one after the other in round robin computationally less complex bandwidth per class can not be guaranteed Weighted Round Robin OR fashion. If a packet flow weight is 2 times the Class Based Queuing weight of the another, twice the packets are taken during single round compared to the other flow. Same method as WRR but also takes into account the variable length of each flow. 1-More accurate bandwidth Not as precise end to end delay guarantees control compared to WRR if as other methods do. flows have packets of variable sizes. 2-Overcomes problem of WFQ by having lower computational complexity which can be implemented in hardware.

Traffic classified to different flows and then weight is assigned to the traffic to control the percentage of the bandwidth to the output port BIT by BIT. Traffic flows in round robin fashion. Supports variable length packets. A parcular type of WFQ is CBWFQ ( Class based) that can classify flows according to priorities

Software based and suitable for edge devices only. Not for Core devices.

Hardware based therefore suitable for core and edge applications

Hardware based therefore suitable for core and edge applications

DWRR

Deficit Weighted Round Robin