From: folivore (folivore@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 23:35:55 GMT-3
agg policy counts all the class-maps together.
means one total limit for the sum of several class.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Cisco Group Study" <danielcgs@imc.net.au>
To: "Brian Dennis" <brian@labforge.com>; "Hunt Lee"
<huntl@webcentral.com.au>; "Daniel Cisco Group Study"
<danielcgs@imc.net.au>; "Joe Chang" <changjoe@earthlink.net>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 5:21 AM
Subject: RE: Police command confusion
> Brian,
>
> Are you able to confirm that my understanding of aggregate policer is
correct? (See below)
>
> Daniel
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Dennis [mailto:brian@labforge.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 May 2003 17:04
> To: 'Hunt Lee'; Daniel Cisco Group Study; 'Joe Chang'
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Police command confusion
>
>
> Just use the question mark:
>
> Rack6SW1(config)#mls qos aggregate-policer MYPOLICER ?
> <8000-1000000000> Bits per second
>
> Rack6SW1(config)#mls qos aggregate-policer MYPOLICER 8000 ?
> <8000-2000000> Normal burst bytes
>
> In the real lab ALWAYS use the question mark for commands for aren't
> 100% sure of. Do not get tripped up by being given a number in bytes
> that is entered in the router as bits or visa versa. Also remember that
> some commands take values in kbps (i.e. the QoS policy-map bandwidth and
> priority commands).
>
> Brian Dennis, CCIE #2210 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Hunt Lee
> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2003 7:40 PM
> To: 'Daniel Cisco Group Study'; 'Joe Chang'
> Cc: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> Subject: RE: Police command confusion
>
> Thanks Daniel + Joe,
>
> Another quick question...
>
> For the police AND aggregate policer command, is the burst value in
> bytes
> (like CAR), or is it in bits?
>
> e.g. If I am asked to police the burst for up to 32kps
>
> Would my command be:
>
> mls qos aggregate-policer PolicyA 1000000 4000 exceed-action drop (in
> bytes)
>
> OR
>
> mls qos aggregate-policer PolicyA 1000000 32000 exceed-action drop (in
> bits)
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Regards,
> H.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Cisco Group Study [mailto:danielcgs@imc.net.au]
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 May 2003 8:29 PM
> To: lg01; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> 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 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 - 15:13:50 GMT-3