From: Bob Sinclair (bsin@cox.net)
Date: Mon Nov 22 2004 - 11:37:47 GMT-3
Tim,
I have had a chance to lab up matching on DLCIs, and it does behave as you
indicate: applies to outbound traffic if the policy is applied outbound,
and vice versa. What caught my eye: you can match inbound DLCI and set
outbound, even when both DLCIs are on a single multipoint. Another
illustration that the multipoint hub does a complete decapsulation - routing
process - encapsulation.
Bob Sinclair
CCIE #10427, CCSI 30427, CISSP
www.netmasterclass.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
To: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>; "Bob Sinclair" <bsin@cox.net>; "Anas
Tarsha" <ra3i@yahoo.com>; "Group Study" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: CAR vs Police
> Well, I think I found the answer to my questions regarding CAR vs Police
> using MQC.
>
> With the new features now available, there is NO functionality in CAR that
> isn't available with MQC.
>
> See this link:
>
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t/122t13/ft3level.htm
>
> As this link shows, it's now possible to nest police commands with MQC.
>
> And, it's also possible to match traffic based on dlci, so therefore a
> policy can be applied to the traffic of one particular dlci.
>
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122newft/122t/122t13/ftpcdlci.htm
>
> I assume that when matching traffic based on dlci, whether the dlci
> matched
> is the incoming or outgoing depends on whether the service-policy is
> applied
> to outgoing or incoming traffic, but I can't confirm that until I get some
> rack time.
>
> Any thought?
>
> Tim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
> To: "Bob Sinclair" <bsin@cox.net>; "Anas Tarsha" <ra3i@yahoo.com>; "Group
> Study" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 5:35 PM
> Subject: Re: CAR vs Police
>
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 02 2004 - 06:57:48 GMT-3