From: Tim (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Sep 11 2005 - 13:58:41 GMT-3
Guys,
First thing first - the documentation is full of errors so I recommend the
President Reagan approach: Trust but Verify.
2nd, it's possible that this particular task is looking for the solution to
be configured on the switch with the vlan 10 ports.
3rd, it's possible that there are multiple correct solutions to this
particular task.
My strong advice is to know how to configure EVERY possible solution and
compare the effect, compare the effort required to config and verify each
solution, and make a note to yourself of the different options available to
you. Also, closely examine each solution to see if there are any subtle
differences in the effect of each approach. (My experience has been that
often 2 or more different approaches might be very similar and might be
equally valid under some circumstances but under different conditions
wouldn't be valid. So, if you're planning on taking the lab, be assured that
Cisco will find out if you're not aware of these differences.)
In a few weeks, if you're like me, you'll forget one or more of the
different options and then you could be SOL in the lab where they remove the
solution option you're most comfortable and familiar with. And, then,
you'll be sitting there in the lab and thinking, "Damn, I wished I had
listened to Tim and remembered to write down each option and practice them
enough so that I'm equally comfortable with each of them."
HTH, Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Venkataramanaiah.R
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 6:14 AM
To: Niche
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Rate limiting & MQC's police.... again
In that case, IMHO you will have to go with the Class based solution.
Btw, Tim, the mask A2 does not match 0,1,2 but it would match prec1,7. Of
course, the source (CCO) itself has this error. Correct me if i am wrong.
-Venkat
On 9/11/05, Niche <jackyliu419@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Thanks for the reply first, in order to clarify my confusion, may be I
> post
> the original question (with some modification because I don't want to
> offense the copyright stuff)
>
> Configure QoS on the router for traffic flowing from VLAN 10 (vlan10 =
> 10.1.1.0/24 <http://10.1.1.0/24> <http://10.1.1.0/24>) to outside. Traffic
> found to have an IP
> precedence of 7, 5, 1 will be limited to 2mb maximum. Discard the
> exceeding
> traffic. Use only one ACL to accomplish this requirement. Set 40000 for
> both
> normal burst and excess burst.
>
> According to Tim reply, should I assume next time if the question ask me
> to
> do QoS by using IP Precedence value, then I use rate limit instead of MQC?
> It's really hard to define with answer will actually score the points if
> both can meet the requirement if both can achieve the same result... =/
>
> Cheers!
> Jacky
>
> On 9/11/05, Tim <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > Jackie,
> >
> > This problem is looking for the access-list rate-limit command.
> >
> > See this link:
> >
> >
> >
>
>
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fqos
> > _r/qrfcmd1.htm#wp1017391
> >
> > See this example from the Doc-CD,
> >
> > The following example assigns packets with an IP Precedence of 0, 1, or
> 2
> > to
> > the rate-limit access list 25:
> >
> > access-list rate-limit 25 mask 42
> >
> >
> > With this command, in combo with the mask keyword, you can define which
> ip
> > precedences are to be rate-limited.
> >
> > HTH, Tim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > jackyliu@cyberport.com.hk
> > Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 1:38 AM
> > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: Rate limiting & MQC's police.... again
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > A book's question request me to limit the incoming traffic
> > with ip precedence marking 1, 5, 7 at 2mb or below from the
> > LAN side and drop the exceeding packets. It also request me
> > to create only a single access-list to finish the task.
> >
> > My approach:
> > policy-map in-traffic
> > police 2000000 5000 10000 conform-action transmit
> > exceed-action drop violate-action drop
> > !
> > class-map match-all 1-5-7
> > match ip precedence 1 5 7
> > match access-group 10
> > !
> > access-list 10 permit 10.1.1.0 <http://10.1.1.0> <http://10.1.1.0>
> 0.0.0.255 <http://0.0.0.255><http://0.0.0.255>
> > !
> > interface e0
> > service-policy input in-traffic
> >
> >
> >
> > The book's approach
> >
> > interface e0
> > ip address 10.1.1.254 <http://10.1.1.254> <http://10.1.1.254>
> 255.255.255.0 <http://255.255.255.0><http://255.255.255.0>
> > rate-limit 2000000 5000 10000 access-group 20 confrom-action
> > transmit exceed-action drop
> > !
> > access-list 20 rate-limit mask A2
> >
> > Is my approach also can achieve the task? Just want to know
> > the different there =)
> >
> > Cheers!
> > Jacky
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > 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 : Sun Oct 02 2005 - 14:40:14 GMT-3