From: Bob Sinclair (bsinclair@netmasterclass.net)
Date: Fri Apr 15 2005 - 12:30:57 GMT-3
Hi Jim,
It seems to me that the direct "match ip ..." is simpler than the extra step
with the access-list. However, wouldn't both necessarily result in a "no
match"? Your class-map is "match-all", but is it possible for one packet to
be marked both precedence 7 and DSCP 45?
Precedence 7 is 111000 in the first 6 bits of TOS byte
DSCP 45 is 101101 in the first 6 bits of TOS byte
HTH,
Bob Sinclair
CCIE #10427, CCSI 30427, CISSP
www.netmasterclass.net
----- Original Message -----
From: James Matrisciano
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 11:13 AM
Subject: Building the Class-Map
Question to any QoS Gurus out there. While working in the various labs
in preparation for my (next) Lab attempt, I see different ways of
building qos policies to match on DSCP values and Precedence values.
Below are two separate class-maps that to me do the same thing. Would
anyone disagree with this and if so, why? I want to be able to produce
a best practice solution in the lab, however, I want to do it the
quickest way possible. To me, simple match commands in the class-map
seem to work a lot quicker than building an extended access list, then
applying that list into the class-map. Comments?
class-map match-all with_access_list
match access-group name qos
ip access-list extended qos
permit ip any any dscp 45
permit ip any any precedence network
class-map match-all qos
match ip precedence 7
match ip dscp 45
!
jm
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscription information may be found at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 03 2005 - 07:54:58 GMT-3