From: Bob Sinclair (bsin@cox.net)
Date: Mon Nov 22 2004 - 12:18:31 GMT-3
Tim,
I too have trouble visualizing it! I went back and checked my lab notes,
and what I actually did was to set precedence on the hub for traffic
transiting between spokes. The policy was applied on input matching on a
DLCI. I also set precedence using an input policy and matched that
precedence in an output policy on the same multipoint. I cannot think of a
way to match input DLCI in an outbound policy, as you can with an input
interface match.
Good catch!
Bob Sinclair
CCIE #10427, CCSI 30427, CISSP
www.netmasterclass.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
To: "Bob Sinclair" <bsin@cox.net>; "Group Study" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: CAR vs Police
> Hey Bob,
>
> All in all, this MQC stuff is turning to be very flexible and powerful.
>
> But, I can't visualize how to configure that matching inbound and setting
> outbound thing you mentioned. A service policy is one way either inbound
> or
> outbound. Any chance you can show me an example of what you're saying?
>
> Thanks, Tim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Sinclair" <bsin@cox.net>
> To: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>; "Group Study" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 9:37 AM
> Subject: Re: CAR vs Police
>
>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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