Re: FR traffic shaping

Hi,

I am never really sure if pim is supposed to be included when the
question says " all routing protocols". I believe that I have seen
more examples where pim is included.

-Rich

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:22 AM, vivek vidhate <vidhatevivek_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Does Pim is required to b included in it? I think only BGP is enough for it.
>
> Pls correct me if I am wrong.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Prakash Kalsaria
> <kalsaria.prakash_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks For reply, this could be the 1 way
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> http://prakashkalsaria.wordpress,com
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Rich Collins <nilsi2002_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I would suggest MQC for the traffic shaping but somehow the routing
>> > protocol traffic has to be accounted for as a bandwidth percentage or
>> > LLQ. The other traffic classes left over could be shaped.
>> >
>> > For not dropping the routing protocol traffic you can use de-list
>> > (discard eligible). Set all other traffic discard-eligible.
>> >
>> > I reset the frame-relay counters and you can see that the DE packets
>> > out is a bit less than the total number of output packets.
>> >
>> > i.e.
>> > frame-relay de-list 1 protocol ip list 101
>> >
>> >
>> > interface Serial1/1
>> > ip address 24.24.24.4 255.255.255.0
>> > encapsulation frame-relay
>> > serial restart-delay 0
>> > frame-relay de-group 1 402
>> > frame-relay map ip 24.24.24.2 402 broadcast
>> > no frame-relay inverse-arp
>> > no clns route-cache
>> > !
>> >
>> > access-list 101 deny pim any any
>> > access-list 101 deny tcp any eq bgp any
>> > access-list 101 deny tcp any any eq bgp
>> > access-list 101 permit ip any any
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > R4#sh frame-relay pvc
>> >
>> > PVC Statistics for interface Serial1/1 (Frame Relay DTE)
>> >
>> > Active Inactive Deleted Static
>> > Local 1 0 0 0
>> > Switched 0 0 0 0
>> > Unused 0 0 0 0
>> >
>> > DLCI = 402, DLCI USAGE = LOCAL, PVC STATUS = ACTIVE, INTERFACE =
>> > Serial1/1
>> >
>> > input pkts 7 output pkts 7 in bytes 665
>> > out bytes 627 dropped pkts 0 in pkts dropped 0
>> > out pkts dropped 0 out bytes dropped 0
>> > in FECN pkts 0 in BECN pkts 0 out FECN pkts 0
>> > out BECN pkts 0 in DE pkts 0 out DE pkts 5
>> > out bcast pkts 0 out bcast bytes 0
>> > pvc create time 00:28:52, last time pvc status changed 00:28:52
>> > R4#
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Prakash Kalsaria
>> > <kalsaria.prakash_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Question:
>> > > In Frame-relay traffic shaping,
>> > > How do we Ensure, Routing protocols are not candidate to be shaped or
>> > > droped
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Prakash Kalsaria
>> > > http://prakashkalsaria.wordpress.com
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________________________________
>> > > Subscription information may be found at:
>> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks & Regards,
>
> Vivek Vidhate.

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Thu Jul 08 2010 - 17:14:08 ART