From: Carlos Alberto Trujillo Jimenez (carlos.trujillo.jimenez@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Mar 05 2008 - 14:24:59 ARST
In the NETMASTERCLASS workbook lab 8 taks 8.14.1.
"Provide a QoS Solution to the VPN users allowing traffic between R2 and R3
to be shaped to 30Kbit per second"
The solution guide as well as "SHOW-IT" places the CB-SHAPING MAP under the
physical interfaces that carry tunel traffic to the path to the other tunnel
endpoint.
In the solution guide the local router matches the IP-in-IP traffic by an
ACL, to match the tunneled traffic, and applies the shaping to it under the
physical interface.
*SOLUTION PASTED FROM THE SHOW-IT:*
interface Tunnel0
description R2-R3 VPN
ip address 10.10.11.3 255.255.255.0
tunnel source 172.16.103.1
tunnel destination 172.16.102.1
tunnel mode ipip
ip access-list extended QOS_R3-R2_VPN
permit ipinip host 172.16.103.1 host 172.16.102.1
class-map match-all QOS_VPN
match access-group name QOS_R3-R2_VPN
policy-map QOS_VPN
class QOS_VPN
shape average 30000
interface Serial0/1.35 point-to-point
*service-policy output QOS_VPN*
*MY SOLUTION:*
Instead of matching by an ACL the IP-IN-IP traffic, I matched by a
class-default under a policy-map ALL the TRAFFIC leaving the TUNNEL, and
there I apply the shaping *UNDER THE TUNNEL INTERFACE*.
interface Tunnel0
ip address 10.10.11.3 255.255.255.0
tunnel source 172.16.103.1
tunnel destination 172.16.25.2
tunnel mode ipip
*service-policy output SHAPE*
policy-map SHAPE
class class-default
shape average 30000
*QUESTION:*
According to the task, is valid my solution ?? If both are valid, who works
better? or is better recommended?
Thanks.
**
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 01 2008 - 07:53:52 ART