From: Joe Chang (changjoe@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue May 27 2003 - 22:03:33 GMT-3
I haven't tried it in lab yet, but from the doc it seems to me that
"aggregate policer" allows traffic from several classes to be limited by the
same policer , i.e. the sum of the traffic streams will be evaluated against
the parameters. I don't think its a config file macro sort of feature.
Hunt's example has only one class, so I don't see why aggregate policer is
required in the solution.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Cisco Group Study" <danielcgs@imc.net.au>
To: "lg01" <lg01@myway.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 3:28 AM
Subject: RE: Police command confusion
> Hunt,
>
> Firstly, this is my interpretation of the doco, and has not been handed
down to me by an "authority".
>
> From what I can gather, the aggregate policer is a quick way to apply the
same "policing paramters" to multple classes. For example, the policy map
"NOAGG" will do exactly the same as "WITHAGG" in the example below.
>
> Anyone agree with this???????
>
> If I'm correct, I'd probably not use an aggregate policer in the exam,
unless it was a requirement, or I didn't want to type in the same thing 10
times........sorry.. 8 times. (max no. of policers = 8 on FE)
>
> Daniel
>
> Example:
>
> mls qos aggregate-policer MrPoliceman 128000 8000 exceed-action drop
> mls qos
> !
> class-map match-all class4
> match access-group 103
> class-map match-all class2
> match access-group 101
> class-map match-all class3
> match access-group 102
> class-map match-all class1
> match access-group 100
> !
> !
> policy-map NOAGG
> class class1
> police 128000 8000 exceed-action drop
> class class2
> police 128000 8000 exceed-action drop
> class class3
> police 128000 8000 exceed-action drop
> class class4
> police 128000 8000 exceed-action drop
> !
> policy-map WITHAGG
> class class1
> police aggregate MrPoliceman
> class class2
> police aggregate MrPoliceman
> class class3
> police aggregate MrPoliceman
> class class4
> police aggregate MrPoliceman
> !
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lg01 [mailto:lg01@myway.com]
> Sent: Sunday, 25 May 2003 22:29
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Police command confusion
>
>
> Hi Team,
>
> Can someone please explain to me, for policy map, when should one just use
the "police" command, and when should we use the "aggregate policer"
command?
>
> Or is there any particular "wording" that hints when I should use each?
>
> In my exercise that I'm working on, it goes like "Police port 0/13 of
switch1. Limit the speed on this port to 1Mbps, with burst set to 32kps.
Drop all packets that exceed this policy"... and the answer ended up using
"aggregate policer".
>
> As an e.g., for the "police" command...
>
> mls qos
> !
> class-map match-all class1
> match access-group 102
> !
> !
> policy-map pol1
> class class1
> police 1000000 32000 exceed-action drop
> !
> interface FastEthernet0/13
> switchport access vlan 813
> no ip address
> service-policy input pol1
> !
> access-list 102 permit ip any any
>
>
> Just for completeness, here comes the "aggregate policer" e.g.
>
> mls qos
> !
> mls qos aggregate-policer PolicyA 1000000 32000 exceed-action drop
> !
> class-map match-all All
> match access-group 102
> !
> !
> policy-map Test
> class All
> police aggregate PolicyA
>
> interface FastEthernet0/12
> switchport access vlan 800
> switchport mode access
> no ip address
> service-policy input Test
> spanning-tree portfast
>
>
> access-list 102 permit ip any any
>
> And one last question I have got for you guys before heading to bed.
> For police OR aggregate-policer, does it work like CAR where the burst
value is in bytes? (rather than in bits)
>
> Meaning should my command become.. (to change 32000bits into bytes?)
>
> mls qos aggregate-policer PolicyA 1000000 4000 exceed-action drop
>
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Regards,
> Hunt
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding.
> Introducing My Way - http://www.myway.com
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
> are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
> the system manager.
> This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
> MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
> www.mimesweeper.com
> **********************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 15:13:48 GMT-3