From: maureen schaar (maureen.schaar@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Mar 30 2007 - 11:52:24 ART
Well, if you specify car both inbound and outbound, I think it would
work, BUT this is just my opinion, not from experience.
Maureen
On 3/30/07, Radioactive Frog <pbhatkoti@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Maureen,
> Thanks for reply.
>
> I was meant if I do:
>
> Interface fas0/0
> rate-limit input 64000 11520 23040 conform-action transmit exceed-action
> drop
> rate-limit output 64000 11520 23040 conform-action transmit exceed-action
> drop
>
> and
>
> Interface fas0/0
> switchport mode access
> switchport
> switchport access vlan10
>
> Interface vlan10
> ip add 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
> rate-limit input 64000 11520 23040 conform-action transmit exceed-action
> drop
> rate-limit output 64000 11520 23040 conform-action transmit exceed-action
> drop
>
> Do you see there any issue ? Applying CAR on SVI or on physical interface ?
>
> Frog..............
>
>
>
> On 3/30/07, maureen schaar <maureen.schaar@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't know what your specific requirements are, but here's my thought.
> > With an SVI, how would you determine the direction of traffic? IMO,
> > you would have to specify an inbound and outbound rate-limit in this
> > case to 'catch' all VLAN traffic.
> > Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
> >
> > Otherwise use some for of vlan-based policing to be able to specify an
> > aggregate rate regardless of the direction. I think this is what 'mls
> > qos vlan-based' was made for ;-)
> >
> >
> > Maureen
> >
> >
> > On 3/30/07, Radioactive Frog <pbhatkoti@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hi GS,
> > >
> > >
> > > Are there any knows issues to apply CAR on physical interface vs. SVI
> > > interface ?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Frog
> > >
> > >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 01 2007 - 06:35:53 ART