WFQ and CBWFQ Comparison
The following table compares Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ) and Class Based Weighted Fair Queuing:
| Feature | Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ) | Class-Based Weighted Fair Queuing (CBWFQ) |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Automatically allocates bandwidth based on flow weight and size. | Extends WFQ by allowing user-defined classes for traffic. |
| Traffic Differentiation | Differentiates based on flows and IP precedence. | Differentiates based on predefined traffic classes. |
| Configuration Complexity | Minimal configuration required; no user-defined classes. | Requires user-defined class maps and policy maps for configuration. |
| Scalability | Limited scalability for large numbers of flows. | More scalable; handles traffic in broader, user-defined categories. |
| Flexibility | Less flexible; relies on automatic flow recognition. | Highly flexible; allows explicit bandwidth allocation to classes. |
| Bandwidth Allocation | Proportional to the flow weight. | Explicitly configured per class, with strict bandwidth guarantees. |
| Use Case | Best for environments with mixed flow types and no strict needs. | Best for environments requiring granular control over bandwidth. |
| Support for Priority | No strict prioritization; all flows are weighted. | Supports low-latency queuing (LLQ) for strict priority traffic. |
| Latency Sensitivity | May have higher latency for critical traffic. | Can prioritize latency-sensitive traffic (e.g., voice) with LLQ. |
| Resource Requirements | Moderate resource usage. | Higher resource usage due to classification and policy enforcement. |
Links
https://networklessons.com/quality-of-service/apply-cbwfq-to-sub-interface