From: Koen Zeilstra (koen@koenzeilstra.com)
Date: Wed May 17 2006 - 17:02:37 ART
In a workbook a task was mentioned to rate limit traffic at a certain
amount and don't use cef. The solution was a police based method using
MQC. So they didn't use rate limiting. I read that as since rate limiting
relies on CEF. Not sure if this is true.
It would defenately help if someone pointed to a valid source which
clearly states:
no ip cef for QOS --> don't use blah di blah
use ip cef for QOS --> use blah di blah
-----------------------
A fool must now and then be right by chance.
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Roberto Fernandez wrote:
|
| I think it is restricting you to NOT use NBAR, just that. MQC itself
| does not requires CEF, not CAR either requires it. (I understand)
|
| Best Regards,
| Roberto
|
| -----Original Message-----
| From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
| Koen Zeilstra
| Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:02 PM
| To: Daniel Kutchin
| Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
| Subject: Re: CEF and QoS, again
|
| In other words (forget my previous email):
|
| When the QOS task requires you to "not use cef" what options do you have
|
| left?
|
| And what about restricting to use cef for your solution?
|
| grtz,
|
| Koen
|
| -----------------------
| unix soit qui mal y pense
|
| On Tue, 16 May 2006, Daniel Kutchin wrote:
|
| | Hi Taylor -
| |
| | 4) Disable CEF for PPPoFR (i.e. Virtual Templates)
| |
| | BTW: Always enable CEF in order to use NBAR (In the book according to
| Odom
| | Chapter p.222)
| |
| | Daniel
| |
| | ----- Original Message -----
| | From: "Wang, Ting (Taylor)" <wangting@avaya.com>
| | To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
| | Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2006 4:09 AM
| | Subject: RE: CEF and QoS, again
| |
| |
| | Hi Group,
| | Sorry missed the text in last mail.
| | I find some discussion on when CEF need to be enabled for QoS, but
| | still not quite sure. From previous discussion, it concludes that CEF
| | need to be enabled when you are using NBAR, marking your traffic or
| | CAR. Is that correct? For marking, there is several appoach like
| police,
| | MQC set, PBR, and CAR. In which case the CEF is a must, and in which
| | case it is recommended or not required?
| | There is another saying "you don't have to enable NBAR to mark traffic
| | via protocol (for well-known protocols at least)." " CEF and QoS are
| | mutually exclusive." How to understand it? In which case we need to
| | disable the CEF for QOS?
| | Following are conclusion from some past discussion, any idea on that?
| | 1) There are no real reasons that you want to disable CEF unless you
| | were running into a bug where's it causing problems.
| | 2) Disable CEF when using proxy-arp, 'cause this can cause a routing
| | loop
| | 3) If you wanted to load-balance by the routing protocol then you
| would
| | not want cef . The logic being that cef would assume the load
| balancing
| | functions over the routing protocol once populated.
| |
| | Thanks,
| | Taylor
| |
| |
| _______________________________________________________________________
| | 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 Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:21 ART