RE: CAR rate limiting

From: Michael Stout (michaelgstout@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Aug 09 2006 - 22:33:24 ART


this is indeed very interesting.
However, if you reversed the order of NoCEF1 and NoCEF2 you would achieve
the same result.
The Class lines are parsed in order and when a match is made the code for
that class is processed.
I believe the origional question was asking about the contine parameter .

What would you do to the traffic upon the continuation?

  --------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: "Aaron Pilcher" <apilcher@itgcs.com>
  Reply-To: "Aaron Pilcher" <apilcher@itgcs.com>
  To: "'Salzano, Mario Arthur Costa'" <mario.salzano@siemens.com>,
  "'Paul Dardinski'" <pauld@marshallcomm.com>, "'Cisco certification'"
  <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
  Subject: RE: CAR rate limiting
  Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 08:10:20 -0500
  Good point....

  class-map match-all NoCEF1
    match not access-group name NoCEF2
    match access-group name NoCEF1
  class-map match-any NoCEF2
    match access-group name NoCEF2

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Salzano, Mario Arthur Costa [mailto:mario.salzano@siemens.com]
  Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 8:01 AM
  To: Aaron Pilcher; Paul Dardinski; Cisco certification
  Subject: RE: CAR rate limiting

  But FTP is also a TCP protocol. How could we separate them?

  Matching NoCEF1 is also a matching on NoCEF2.

  Does anybody have an idea for this case?

  I think that using "match not" expression could be a solution.

  Regards,

  -----Original Message-----
  From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
  Of
  Aaron Pilcher
  Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 9:38 AM
  To: 'Paul Dardinski'; 'Cisco certification'
  Subject: RE: CAR rate limiting

  Yes it is possible using CAR, or LLQ......the enclosed use a higher
  rate
  than than 100/500k....

  class-map match-any NoCEF1
    match access-group name NoCEF1
  class-map match-any NoCEF2
    match access-group name NoCEF2
  !
  !
  policy-map LIMIT
    class NoCEF1
  bandwidth 2000
    class NoCEF2
  bandwidth 1000

  Interface gig0/0
    service-policy output LIMIT

  ip access-list extended NoCEF1
    permit tcp any any
  ip access-list extended NoCEF2
    permit tcp any any eq ftp
    permit tcp any any eq ftp-data

  *********************************************
  *********************************************

  rate-limit output access-group 100 2000000 1500 2000 conform-action
  transmit
  exceed-action drop
    rate-limit output access-group 101 1000000 1500 2000 conform-action
  transmit exceed-action drop

  The ACLs 100 and 101 would, of course be something like the above
  (NoCEF1
  and NoCEF2).

  ************************************************************************
  *
  ************************************************************************
  *

  Though CEF is commonly configured with all QOS implementations, the
  DocCD
  does not list it as a requirement for either LLQ or CAR.

  -aaron

  -----Original Message-----
  From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
  Of
  Paul
  Dardinski
  Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 6:44 AM
  To: Cisco certification
  Subject: CAR rate limiting

  If required for example to limit www traffic to rate x and limit tcp
  traffic to rate y, is this possible using continue via CAR?

  Can anyone provide an example config for this?

  Ie. limit www to 100k, tcp to 500k?

  _______________________________________________________________________
  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 : Fri Sep 01 2006 - 15:41:56 ART