From: Balaji Siva (bsivasub@xxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sun Aug 11 2002 - 13:47:51 GMT-3
in your acl 103 will deny everything, you need ip permit any any at the
end.
but yes you can do this way with CAR ..AFAIK.
Now as far as the other discussion about shaping vs policing.
I think shaping (like GTS) would work in this case. it is also is the max
allowed. policing would drop it ..shaping would queue it (but may drop if
the queue is full)
This URL would give you some more thoughts on this discussion.
http://www.cisco.com/warp/customer/105/policevsshape.html#minimum
Balaji
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
\mit Askan (TK-Network Gvz|mleri)
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 12:10 PM
To: 'Michael Snyder'
Cc: Ccie (E-mail)
Subject: RE: QOS Question from Routopia LAB 3
hi,
what about using rate-limit, please look the conf,
1Mb int - 100k for icmp ( nearly 100k 96500 is the permitted ) - 200k
for bgp - 700k for the others ( nearly 700k 696000 is the permitted )
interface Serial1/1
bandwidth 1000000
ip address 1.1.1.2 255.255.255.0
rate-limit output access-group 101 96000 18750 18750 conform-action
transmit exceed-action drop
rate-limit output access-group 102 200000 37500 37500 conform-action
transmit exceed-action drop
rate-limit output access-group 103 696000 131250 131250 conform-action
transmit exceed-action drop
!
access-list 101 permit icmp any any
access-list 102 permit tcp any any eq bgp
access-list 103 deny icmp any any
access-list 103 deny tcp any any eq bgp
can we do like that ?
best Regards
umit
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Snyder [mailto:msnyder@revolutioncomputer.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 18:15
To: 'Jim Brown'
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: QOS Question from Routopia LAB 3
Ok,
In other words, both effect bandwidth.
Policing affects maximum usable bandwidth.
Shaping affects minimum usable bandwidth.
Two sides of the same coin really.
Back to the question that started the thread,
; Configure the serial interface on R6 so that Ping
; traffic can only
; utilize 10% of available bandwidth. Allow BGP to
; utilize no more
; than 20% of available bandwidth. Allow all other
; traffic to utilize up
; to 70% of available link capacity.
Would GTS tied to access lists work? I know that the S in GTS stands
for shaping, but when you tie it to an access list, it's really doing a
limiting function.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Brown [mailto:Jim.Brown@caselogic.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 10:01 AM
To: 'Balaji Siva'; msnyder@revolutioncomputer.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: QOS Question from Routopia LAB 3
Custom queueing wouldn't be appropriate based on the original question
to
"limit bandwidth."
Queueing only comes into play during times of congestion. In other words
if
the traffic in question is the only traffic on the wire, it can exceed
the
desired limit if there isn't any congestion and custom queueing would
never
come into play.
This is really the difference between policing and shaping.
-----Original Message-----
From: Balaji Siva [mailto:bsivasub@cisco.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 8:43 AM
To: msnyder@revolutioncomputer.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: QOS Question from Routopia LAB 3
CAR is supported on many platforms..not just on 7500..
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios121/121cgcr/
qos_
c/qcprt1/qcdcar.htm#xtocid285760
now as far as custom queueing solution.. i suppose it could....i am not
a
big fan of legacy qos features
regards
Balaji
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Snyder [mailto:msnyder@ldd.net]
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2002 10:18 AM
To: 'Balaji Siva'
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: QOS Question from Routopia LAB 3
Hate to be simple, but couldn't custom queueing do this?
BTW, is CAR supported on the lab hardware? My voice qos book said it
could only run on the 7500 series and above. Then again it doesn't
cover class based queuing either, so it may out of date.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Balaji Siva
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 8:53 PM
To: William lu; Akhilesh Verma; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: QOS Question from Routopia LAB 3
the question is vague as it could be just LLQ for ping/bgp ..and the
rest
class-default ..if the question had just mentioned that these things are
applicable only at times of congestion.
but since it didn't..
how about this
class-map ping
match access-group 101 <--- 101 matches icmp
class-map bgp
match access-group 102 <---- 102 matches bgp
policy-map ccie
class ping
police xxxx xxxxxx <-----10 % policer
class bgp
police xxxx xxxx <----- 30 % policer
int s0
service output ccie
Regards
Balaji
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
William lu
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2002 9:22 PM
To: Akhilesh Verma; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: QOS Question from Routopia LAB 3
Hi,
I would use both technique complete this scenario:
1. Use CAR to limit the bandwidth used in CBWFQ. The
default bandwidth of physical interface be used for
the bandwidth calculation if you did not use TS or
CAR. (You may no be able to use bandwidth interface
command, which use for metric only).
2. Use CBWFQ to assign the bandwidth to each type of
traffic, which specify by CAR.
This is my implementation of the question. hope have
better one.
LUW.
Akhilesh, Where can I find this lab scenario? I'd like
to play with this completed lab.
--- Akhilesh Verma <akverma@cisco.com> wrote:
> Folks,
> I am working on Routopia LAB 3
and
> I have the following
> question
>
> Configure the serial interface on R6 so that Ping
> traffic can only
> utilize 10% of available bandwidth. Allow BGP to
> utilize no more
> than 20% of available bandwidth. Allow all other
> traffic to utilize up
> to 70% of available link capacity.
>
>
> Now ordinarily One would think that this is
> classification and not
> policing . Would you do CBWFQ here or CAR ?
>
> TIA
>
> Akhilesh
> ------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------
> Akhilesh Verma,
> Cisco Systems Inc.
> Systems Engineer
> 771,Alder Drive,
> Milpitas,CA-95035
> Pager:800-365-4578
> Direct: 408-853-9033
> Mobile: 510-501-1182.
> E-mail: akverma@cisco.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:48:23 GMT-3