From: simon hart (simon.hart@btinternet.com)
Date: Sat Feb 12 2005 - 10:06:35 GMT-3
Andrew,
Have no tested it, but I would say that both methods will have the same
results. As you point out method 2 would be more efficient (by how much is
anyones guess)
Simon
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Edwards, Andrew M
Sent: 10 February 2005 05:35
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject:
All,
I am trying to understand the nuances of matching on packet length.
I understand that a policy-map is parsed in order of the classes applied in
the policy.
Given that, and a general scenario requirement to create two classes such
that one class
will match lengths between 250 and 1400 bytes and set ip prec 4, and another
class
will match lengths of 500 bytes only and set ip prec 3.
What is the significant difference between the following two methods
and functionally? Would they be different or the same? As far as I can
tell they are the same with method two being more efficient.
Method 1:
class-map match-all one
match packet length min 500 max 500
class-map match-any two
match packet length min 250 max 499
match packet length min 501 max 1400
policy-map ALL
class one
set ip prec 3
class two
set ip prec 4
Method 2:
class-map match-all one
match packet length min 500 max 500
class-map match-all two
match packet length min 250 max 1400
policy-map ALL
class one
set ip prec 3
class two
set ip prec 4
Any help or thoughts are appreciated.
andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Mar 03 2005 - 08:51:20 GMT-3