From: Wade Edwards (wade.edwards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Feb 02 2001 - 13:23:09 GMT-3
Sorry I thought it was in bps not Bps.
-----Original Message-----
From: Nodir Nazarov [mailto:nodir@datatone.com]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 10:12 AM
To: Wade Edwards
Cc: Michael E. Flannagan; David Goldsmith; Robert DeVito;
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: CAR question
Wade,
450000 bytes is not 0.45 Mbps
450000 bytes *8 = 3600000 bits.
Nodir
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Wade Edwards wrote:
> OK I am now confused. How are you getting 6.6 Mbps from the command
below.
>
> rate-limit input access-group 101 3000000 450000 500000 conform-action
> transmit exceed-action drop
>
> It should be 3 Mbps with a normal burst of .45 Mbps and a max burst at .5
> Mbps. Is the formula first number + second number is normal traffic and
> first number + second number + first number + third number is the max
burst
> rate? I don't understand what is meant by burst then. I thought normal
> burst was what you are given above the first number and still be within
your
> budget and max burst is what will be dropped.
>
> I am so confused about CAR now.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Michael E. Flannagan
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 8:55 AM
> To: David Goldsmith
> Cc: Robert DeVito; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: CAR question
>
>
> Dave is exactly right...I love zeros - just got carried away :-)
>
> Sorry for the confusion.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> C i s c o S y s t e m s Michael E. Flannagan
> | | Network Consulting Engineer
> ||| ||| Research Triangle Park, NC
> ||||||| ||||||| (919) 392-4550
> .:|||||||||||:.:|||||||||||:. mflannag@cisco.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, David Goldsmith wrote:
>
> > Group,
> >
> > Actually, that is incorrect. This would allow 3mega bits for the first
> number
> > and 3.6 mega bits for the burst.
> >
> > the second number is in bytes. This statement will allow 6.6 M bits
> through.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > "Michael E. Flannagan" wrote:
> >
> > > Robert -
> > >
> > > Look at it this way. 1st number + 2nd number = where your action
begins
> > > to be selectively applied to traffic (in this case, the action is
> > > 'drop'). The 3rd number is the point beyond which the exceed-action
> will
> > > be applied to ALL traffic. If you truly wanted to limit traffic to
not
> > > exceed 3.5Mb, then you would want to make sure that rate+Eb = 3.5Mb
> > >
> > > ex: rate-limit input access-group 101 3000000 450000 500000
> conform-action
> > > transmit exceed-action drop
> > >
> > > That would allow up to 3.45Mb of traffic before any action was taken
and
> > > would drop *some* traffic between 3.45Mb and 3.5Mb, but would drop all
> > > traffic over 3.5Mb.
> > >
> > > Hope that helps,
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > C i s c o S y s t e m s Michael E. Flannagan
> > > | | Network Consulting Engineer
> > > ||| ||| Research Triangle Park, NC
> > > ||||||| ||||||| (919) 392-4550
> > > .:|||||||||||:.:|||||||||||:. mflannag@cisco.com
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Robert DeVito wrote:
> > >
> > > > If I wanted to limit SMTP to 3.5 MB on my ethernet port I would do
the
> > > > following?
> > > >
> > > > rate-limit input access-group 101 3500000 8000 8000 conform-action
> transmit
> > > > exceed-limit drop
> > > > !
> > > > access-list 101 permit tcp any any eq smtp
> > > >
> > > > My question is, when configuring CAR, it requires me to add the bps
> > > > burst-normal and burst-max. If I came across an scenario when it ask
> me to
> > > > limit bandwidth to a specific protocol, in this case smtp, to
3.5mbs,
> if I
> > > > configure it to burst 8k, I am really not limiting it to 3.5mbs. Am
I
> > > > thinking correctly? Is there a different way of doing this?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > RobertRobert DeVito
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:28:34 GMT-3