RE: Frame Relay Switching Over IP Tunnel

From: David Heaton (David.Heaton@citec.com.au)
Date: Thu Dec 18 2003 - 06:11:24 GMT-3


To my knowledge, tunnelled traffic is process switched

I have read documents (probably referring to older pre 11.2 IOS)
stating that GRE encapsulation incurrs process switching
speeds that are half the speed of normal process switching

w.r.t CPU load I have seen frame relay traffic go through
STUN tunnels, incurring up to 15% CPU load per 2Mbit of traffic

Limits on number of tunnels I don't know, other than to think
of fundamental IOS idb limits - which are out the window
anyway with new IOS and platforms - something like a maximum
of 10,000 interfaces on a 7206VXR

Regards
David

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Danny Ng
Sent: Tuesday, 16 December 2003 9:01 PM
To: ccielab
Subject: Fw: Frame Relay Switching Over IP Tunnel

The example given earlier was wrong...my question was

 interface Serial5/7
  clockrate 128000
  frame-relay intf-type dce
  frame-relay route 176 interface Tunnel0 176
 !
 interface Serial6/0
  clockrate 128000
  frame-relay intf-type dce
  frame-relay route 276 interface Tunnel0 276
!
 interface Serial6/1
  clockrate 128000
  frame-relay intf-type dce
  frame-relay route 376 interface Tunnel0 376
!
 interface Tunnel0
  no ip address
  tunnel source Serial1/0
  tunnel destination 192.168.15.198

What is the maximum route statement can be place over single tunnel?
Anyway to know how much proccessing power it take for CPU to switch each
of the packet that through the tunnel interface? Any limitation of
create a lot of tunnel interfaces in the same router?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Ng" <danny_ng@cnadvisers.com>
To: "ccielab" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2003 11:02 AM
Subject: Frame Relay Switching Over IP Tunnel

> Have any one has the experience of configured frame relay PVC to route
through
> the single tunnel interface? For example;
>
> interface Serial5/7
> no ip address
> encapsulation frame-relay IETF
> frame-relay lmi-type ansi
> frame-relay intf-type dce
> frame-relay lmi-n392dce 3
> frame-relay lmi-n393dce 5
> frame-relay route 176 interface Tunnel0 176
> frame-relay route 276 interface Tunnel0 276
> frame-relay route 376 interface Tunnel0 376
> !
> interface Tunnel0
> no ip address
> tunnel source Serial1/0
> tunnel destination 192.168.15.198
> !
>
> Any problem of doing so? How much actually the bandwidth allocation
> for
Tunnel
> interface? I know we can do it by create more tunnel interfaces.
>
> Regards,
> Danny
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _
> Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials
from:
> http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jan 03 2004 - 08:25:42 GMT-3