Re: Please confirm (conf#15d283b9d13dfdda82c1428b8e045d5d)

Confirm please

Sent from my iPhone

On 2011-06-13, at 11:29 AM, "Cisco certification" <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> You have tried to post to a GroupStudy.com certification mailing list. Because
> the server does not recognize you as a confirmed poster, you will be required
> to authenticate that you are using a valid e-mail address and are not a
> spammer. By confirming this e-mail you certify that you are not sending
> Unsolicited Bulk Email (UBE).
>
> PLEASE DO NOT SEND YOUR ORIGINAL MESSAGE AGAIN! BY CONFIRMING THIS EMAIL
> YOUR ORIGINAL MESSAGE (WHICH IS NOW QUEUED IN THE SERVER) WILL BE POSTED.
>
>
> By confirming this e-mail you also certify the following:
>
> 1. The message does NOT break Cisco's Non-Disclosure requirements.
>
> 2. The message is NOT designed to advertise a commercial product.
>
> 3. You understand all postings become property of GroupStudy.com
>
> 4. You have searched the archives prior to posting.
>
> 5. The message is NOT inflammatory.
>
> 6. The message is NOT a test message.
>
> To confirm, simply reply to this message. No editing is necessary. Once
> confirmed, you will be able to post without additional confirmations.
>
>
> Welcome to GroupStudy.com!
>
>
> First time posters to GroupStudy.com are required to agree to the GroupStudy terms and conditions.
> Replying to this email, certifies you have read and agree to the GroupStudy posting guidelines and terms and conditions.
>
> --- Original Message Follows ---
>
> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 11:29:36 -0400
> Subject: Policing and Shaping on multi-vrf/MPLS customer subinterface
> From: A A Dessouki <ccieyarub_at_gmail.com>
> To: Cisco certification <ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
>
> Hi All
>
> CE_CUST12_A-----1gige---PE1----MPLS Cloud----PE2---1gige-----CE_CUST12_B
>
> on one physical interface at PE1 and PE2 I have two different vrf gige
> sub-interface for 2 different customers
>
> THis is a 1 gige interface and we would like to provide customer 1 100 Meg
> VPN and customer 2 10 Meg VPN.
>
> For that reason on PE1 and PE2 we decided to apply the following:
> - For vrf customer 1 policing on ingress for 100 Meg and shaping on egress
> for 100 Meg
> - for vrf customer 2 policing on interface for 10 Meg and shaping on egress
> for 10 Meg
>
> So we are applying a qos on the PE1 and PE2 which are two GSR routers with
> IOS.
>
> Problem:
> - If I apply no Hierarchical only flat qos. I have tried to do policing per
> sub-interface this had worked but when apply shaping per sub-interface it
> reject it and ask me to apply Hierarchical QOS.
> - So looking at Hierarchical QOS , I have decided to apply the following
> H-QOS L3/nc/mD policy per vlan.
> so I have done one with Shaping and one for Policing and i attached both
> below
>
> Questions :
> 1- why flat qos [ no hierarchy] policing would be accepted per
> sub-interface, while flat qos shaping per sub-interface is refused and cli
> asking me to apply hierarchy?
> 2- is their a drawback of applying H-QOS Policing/shapping versus applying
> flat Qos policing/shapping ?
> 3- For the vlan case i mentioned above , what will be more suitable L3/nc/nD
> or L3/nc/mD ?
> 4- this policy below I can only apply it for main physical interface, is
> there way i can apply L3/nc/mD in the scenario below on the sub-interface
> instead of the parent interface ?
> Thanks so much
> Bert
>
>
> Hierarchy Policing L3/nc/mD
>
> class-map match-any c1vlan200
> match vlan 200
> class-map match-any c2vlan201
> match vlan 201
> -
>
> (Original message truncated)

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Mon Jun 13 2011 - 17:25:06 ART