From: Carlos Trujillo (carlos.trujillo.jimenez@gmail.com)
Date: Wed Mar 26 2008 - 16:54:08 ART
Hi Sadiq.
Sorry for long time after replying, too much work here!
What I understand in my example, is that in both solutions the router does
limit the traffic destined to each of its interfaces (considered destined to
the control plane) to 8000.
Now, In example 1, I can see clearly that it is limitting to 8000 per
interface, so the cummulutaive traffic the router can recive of both
interfaces is 16000 right? please correct me if Im wrong.
int eth 0/0
rate-limit input access-group 101 8000 1500 2000 conform-action transmit
exceed-action drop
int eth 0/1
rate-limit input access-group 101 8000 1500 2000 conform-action transmit
exceed-action drop
Now with solutiong 2, Im not so sure, but with the policy-map applied within
control-plane inbound direction, it does limit to 8000 per interface? or
cummulative (both interfaces)? to 8000?
I think It works the same as solution 1: 8000 per interface, so the
cummulative between both interfaces would be 16000 as a totall, exactly the
same as solution 1.
Well, I think, this question is not so clear and as Scott states it
definitively requires a Proctor help to understand what is being asked...
Now After reading the following document I think, as Scott says the best and
elegant solution that fits to traffic destined to the control plane of the
router (router interfaces) is control plane policing.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_3t/12_3t4/feature/guide/gtrtlimt.html
Thanks a lot for all who replied for all your comments and your
apreciations.
2008/3/25, Sadiq Yakasai <sadiqtanko@gmail.com>:
>
> Hi Carlos,
>
> I would go with Solution 1: The statement says, limit the traffic to
> "all" interfaces.
>
> The thing with Solution 2 is that you could have 4000K traffic comin
> from each interface (destined for the control plane) and therefore the
> aggregated rate to the control plane would be 8000K and as such, when
> you got 8000K comin from each interface, you got 16000K, which kinda
> goes above the limitation, right?
>
> What do you think?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 01 2008 - 07:53:54 ART