From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Nov 21 2004 - 20:02:16 GMT-3
> Hi Bob,
>
> As I going over all the old GS posts on policing, I came this one
comparing
> CAR and Police.
>
> According to the DQoS by Odem, one of the differences is that with CAR you
> can configure nested rate-limit commands but not with MQC. Since there's
> been alot of new features added to MQC, I wonder if that still holds true.
>
> For example, according to Odem, you couldn't enable MQC on a per dlci
basis,
> but since now you can match on dlci, you can.
>
> So, I wonder if a config like this would fly
>
> policy-map VOICE
> class VOICE
> police 128000
>
> policy-map ALL-TRAFFIC
> class class-default
> police 256000
> service-policy VOICE
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks, Tim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Sinclair" <bsin@cox.net>
> To: "Anas Tarsha" <ra3i@yahoo.com>;"Group Study" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 9:51 PM
> Subject: Re: CAR vs Police
>
>
> > Anas,
> >
> > I would agree that Cisco could do a better job of explaining the
policing
> > mechanism in the MQC, but I think I would disagree that it permits
> buffering
> > during congestion. There are Bc and Be parameters, but according to the
> > documentation this does not buffer packets to shape the traffic. The
best
> > explanation I have found is at the link below, which says that the
policer
> > does not buffer, but "drops packets less aggressively" during
congestion.
> > Could you check it out and see what you think of it?
> >
> >
>
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk543/tk545/technologies_q_and_a_item09186a00800cdfab.shtml#Q24
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -Bob Sinclair
> > CCIE #10427, CISSP, MCSE
> >
> >
> > bsinclair@netmasterclass.net
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Anas Tarsha" <ra3i@yahoo.com>
> > To: "Bob Sinclair" <bsin@cox.net>; "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>;
"Group
> > Study" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 9:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: CAR vs Police
> >
> >
> > > Also theoretically there is a major difference between
> > > CAR and policing, a difference which Cisco hardly
> > > explains it well in my opinion. CAR is a rate-limit
> > > mechanism to limit the input or output transmission
> > > rate on an interface or subinterface based on a
> > > configured value. All the exceeding traffic is dropped
> > > in case the exceeding action is dropping. Policing is
> > > more like a shaping mechanism. As the name implies,
> > > shaping does not drop packets in case of congestion,
> > > it buffers them. You will see delay but no data loss.
> > > So this is the major difference, CAR does not buffer.
> > >
> > > Anas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 02 2004 - 06:57:48 GMT-3