From: David Fahed (dfahed@xxxxxx)
Date: Wed Feb 07 2001 - 09:47:37 GMT-3
It is a typo!!
Le mer, 07 fév 2001, Charles Johnson a écrit :
> Speaking of zeros, there is an IXP example in both
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios111/cc111/car.ht
> m#xtocid255427
> and
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/12cgcr/qos_c
> /qcpart1/qccar.htm
> (watch the wrap)
> that claims to set a limit of 80 Mbps, but lists the bps as 800000000 (note
> 8 zeros, not 7).
>
> Can someone either confirm that that is a typo or explain why that example
> has an extra zero?
>
> When you're struggling to understand CAR, it doesn't take much to throw you
> off. The router clearly accepted the input, because it shows up in the show
> commands of the same doc, but does it really mean 80 Mbps?
>
> Charles
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael E. Flannagan [mailto:mflannag@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 9:55 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 - 10:28:40 GMT-3