From: Mike Gutknecht (mgutknec@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Thu Mar 01 2001 - 01:17:07 GMT-3
One of the problems with this is that you have dropped down to process
switching. When you turn on CAR on the MSFC, you have demoted it to a 7200
series router. The PFC is no longer switching the packets and instead of
getting 15Mpps you are down to 200-300kpps.
Use the QoS policing feature mentioned in an earlier reply and set the burst
relatively high as this is the depth of the token bucket.
Mike G.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Dan
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 12:53 PM
To: Daniel Shin; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Rate-limiting on Cat6K (off topic)
Yeah, this is not really being used for it's VLAN capabilities.
I guess somebody made the decision to go with a Cat6K instead of a router
since there would be only Ethernet connections on it.
Dan Pontrelli
Customer Installation Engineer - Verio NYC
CCNP, MCSE, CNA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Shin" <dshin@cisco.com>
To: <dshin@cisco.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; <dp595@optonline.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: Rate-limiting on Cat6K (off topic)
> If it has a physical port associated with it such as your situation, it
will
> support it. I meant in a msfc that runs native IOS and has a vlan
interface
> associated with it.
>
> > From dp595@optonline.net Mon Feb 26 12:15:04 2001
> > Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 15:14:11 -0500
> > From: Dan <dp595@optonline.net>
> > Subject: Re: Rate-limiting on Cat6K (off topic)
> > To: Daniel Shin <dshin@cisco.com>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > MIME-version: 1.0
> > X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
> > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> > X-Priority: 3
> > X-MSMail-priority: Normal
> >
> > This switch is at one of our datacenters and we have customers on the
> > FastEthernet Ports.
> > This switch is set up exactly like a router. Routing with OSPF and BGP.
No
> > Vlans defined (except for the default Vlan1 with Interface Vlan 1
shutdown),
> > IP addresses on physical FastEthernet interfaces.
> >
> > Well I had set up the rate-limiting like this, but I wasn't sure:
> >
> > #sh ru int f8/3
> > Building configuration...
> >
> > Current configuration:
> > !
> > interface FastEthernet8/3
> > description 1 MB Customer Burstable to 10MB
> > ip address x.x.x.x x.x.x.x
> > rate-limit input 1000000 1125000 1125000 conform-action transmit
> > exceed-action drop
> > rate-limit output 1000000 1125000 1125000 conform-action transmit
> > exceed-action drop
> > no cdp enable
> >
> >
> > It seemed to take, but I haven't plugged in yet and tested. Just going
> > through the preliminary.
> >
> > #sh int f8/3 rate-limit
> > FastEthernet8/3
> > Input
> > matches: all traffic
> > params: 1000000 bps, 1125000 limit, 1125000 extended limit
> > conformed 0 packets, 0 bytes; action: transmit
> > exceeded 0 packets, 0 bytes; action: drop
> > last packet: 2392521644ms ago, current burst: 0 bytes
> > last cleared 01:42:55 ago, conformed 0 bps, exceeded 0 bps
> > Output
> > matches: all traffic
> > params: 1000000 bps, 1125000 limit, 1125000 extended limit
> > conformed 0 packets, 0 bytes; action: transmit
> > exceeded 0 packets, 0 bytes; action: drop
> > last packet: 2392521644ms ago, current burst: 0 bytes
> > last cleared 01:42:39 ago, conformed 0 bps, exceeded 0 bps
> >
> >
> > This Supervisor seems to support this:
> >
> > #show module
> > Slot Ports Card Type Model
> > Serial Number
>
> ---- ----- ----------------------------------------- ---------------------
-
> > ------------
> > 1 2 Cat 6000 sup 1 Enhanced QoS (active) WS-X6K-SUP1A-2GE
> > SAD04450AXT
> > 8 48 48 port 10/100 mb RJ45 WS-X6348-RJ-45
> > SAL04401A55
> > 9 48 48 port 10/100 mb RJ45 WS-X6348-RJ-45
S
> > AL04401ANL
> >
> >
> > I am obviously not familiar with Cat6K.
> >
> > Dan Pontrelli
> > Customer Installation Engineer - Verio NYC
> > CCNP, MCSE, CNA
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Daniel Shin" <dshin@cisco.com>
> > To: <dshin@cisco.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; <dp595@optonline.net>
> > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 2:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: Rate-limiting on Cat6K (off topic)
> >
> >
> > > The first value is the actual rate limit. Second value is what you
allow
> > them
> > > to burst up to. And the third one is if there is a credit from
previous
> > second,
> > > then how much more would you allow them to burst. All the values
added
> > together
> > > is your total car.
> > >
> > > However, going back to the first question, Catalysts do not support
CAR.
> > They
> > > have vlan interfaces that are (literally virtual interface and there
is no
> > > physical port associated with them). When a train of packets arrive,
the
> > first
> > > packet will go through the vlan interface to be routed and the rest of
> > packets
> > > get fastswitched at the wire rate on the switch. That's why the
catalysts
> > can
> > > route packets so much faster than 7500 or 7200 due to that
architecture.
> > They
> > > literally switch packets at a wire rate (the same switching as a layer
2).
> > >
> > > Downside is that the vlan never sees the full traffic going through.
So
> > CAR is
> > > not possible on a catalyst because it will never reach the rate-limit
to
> > be
> > > discarded.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > From dp595@optonline.net Mon Feb 26 10:40:48 2001
> > > > Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 13:40:03 -0500
> > > > From: Dan <dp595@optonline.net>
> > > > Subject: Re: Rate-limiting on Cat6K (off topic)
> > > > To: Daniel Shin <dshin@cisco.com>, ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > MIME-version: 1.0
> > > > X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
> > > > Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
> > > > X-Priority: 3
> > > > X-MSMail-priority: Normal
> > > >
> > > > 6509 Running IOS, and I think I had the burst rates wrong in my
example
> > > > below. I want 9MB of burst, therefore 1125000 bytes of burst (not
> > 1250000).
> > > > Am I using the correct logic here?
> > > >
> > > > Dan Pontrelli
> > > > Customer Installation Engineer - Verio NYC
> > > > CCNP, MCSE, CNA
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Daniel Shin" <dshin@cisco.com>
> > > > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>; <dp595@optonline.net>
> > > > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 1:12 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: Rate-limiting on Cat6K (off topic)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Are you running hybrid or native IOS?
> > > > >
> > > > > Answers embedded...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > From nobody@groupstudy.com Mon Feb 26 09:25:22 2001
> > > > > > Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:18:16 -0500
> > > > > > From: Dan <dp595@optonline.net>
> > > > > > Subject: Rate-limiting on Cat6K (off topic)
> > > > > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > > > X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
> > > > > > X-Priority: 3
> > > > > > X-MSMail-priority: Normal
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > CAR is not supported due to achitecture of catalysts.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am trying to rate-limit a connection on a Cat6K FastEthernet
> > port.
> > > > > > I want 1MB bandwidth burstable to 10MB. I looked at the Cisco
> > website
> > > > and I
> > > > > > think the following would do the trick:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > rate-limit input 1000000 1250000 1250000 conform-action transmit
> > > > > > exceed-action drop
> > > > > > rate-limit output 1000000 1250000 1250000 conform-action
transmit
> > > > > > exceed-action drop
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is this correct? I'm still having trouble understanding why 2
burst
> > > > rates
> > > > > > (normal and maximum) need to be specified.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you don't, you will end up rate-limiting more traffic than
> > intended.
> > > > Think
> > > > > about the traffic pattern. It bursts up and down - especially
FTP.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks in advance for any input.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dan Pontrelli
> > > > > > Customer Installation Engineer - Verio NYC
> > > > > > CCNP, MCSE, CNA
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 13 2002 - 10:29:17 GMT-3