From: asadovnikov (asadovnikov@comcast.net)
Date: Tue Aug 10 2004 - 10:57:40 GMT-3
Option 2, bandwidth + police. Your requirements are little odd though.
Best regards,
Alexei
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
David Duncon
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 5:57 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: CAR vs CBWFQ in relation to Policing and guaranteed B/W allocation.
Hi Group,
I need to dedicate 512k for a specific conversation (between two sets of
server) happening between a HUB and spoke which has a 2MB Frame with 1MB
CIR. And the requirement goes that , I got to allow a guaranteed 512k for
this conversation 24/7 irrespective of load on the wire, but at the same
time drop the packets ( of this conversation) beyond that to make sure this
file transfer/replication will not kill other apps at the spoke.
As I am already running Voice over this 2MB Frame on a dedicated 256k PVC (
and all my 50 odd 7960 phones are working fine :-) ) , I need to be cautious
in accommodating this new requirement so that I will not be having any new
issues from this config.
I reckon I got 2 options here and was wondering which is the better approach
?
Option 1:
Use CAR with an ACL (to define traffic) to facilitate both Policing beyond
512k and to guaranteed B/W allocation !!
Option 2:
Use CBWFQ and then define a class-map and match the ACL of these two sets of
servers in a bi-directional manner ( as source and destination as data may
flow across both directions) , then define a policy map for this class-map
and define both *bandwidth or Priority * command as well as *police*
command with a value of 512k to drop any data packets after that.
ip access-list extended ACL-SERVERS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Step 1
permit ip host 10.1.115.24 host 10.1.1.221 permit ip host 10.1.115.23 host
10.1.1.221 permit ip host 10.1.115.24 host 10.1.1.224 permit ip host
10.1.115.23 host 10.1.1.224 permit ip host 10.1.115.24 host 10.1.1.200
permit ip host 10.1.115.23 host 10.1.1.200
deny ip any any
class-map match-any SERVERS >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Step 2
match access-group name ACL-SERVERS
!!
policy-map Test >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Step 3 class SERVERS
bandwidth 512 or priority 512 ???? police 512000 8000 8000 conform-action
transmit exceed-action drop
violate-action drop
Interface s0/0.200 point-to-point >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Step 4
Service-policy Test
Now I got follows Qs:
- @step number 3 above (option 2) ,I was wondering which one is go for. The
fact that I am NOT talking about a latency sensitive data which needs
priority *dequeuing* such as RTP/RTCP , I am inclined to go for "bandwidth"
command. But then again unlike "bandwidth" command , "priority command" do
have inbuilt policer ???
- Secondly on Option 1, but I am not sure whether CAR can do both policing
and bandwidth allocation at the same time ?
I appreciate any feed back on this issue.
David.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 03 2004 - 07:02:36 GMT-3