It's not the "normal" way of looking at it, but you could certainly use the "shape peak" feature within MQC to achieve that goal. While the main focus is to shape, it will also provide a "do not exceed" value that serves kind of as a limit!
HTH, Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE-M #153, JNCIS-ER, CISSP, et al. CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-ER VP - Technical Training - IPexpert, Inc. IPexpert Sr. Technical Instructor A Cisco Learning Partner - We Accept Learning Credits! [EMAIL PROTECTED] Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 Fax: +1.810.454.0130 http://www.ipexpert.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Derek Winchester Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 6:23 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Shape vs Police question Someone asked me a very good question yesterday and I am still confused if I gave him the correct answer. He gave me a scenario that states that he has to limit all IP Precedence 3 traffic out of an interface to 256k, but he cannot use policing or rate-limiting. My answer was to use shaping. But from my experience, doesn't the word "limit" negates that as a possible answer? Even though you can use shaping to limit, I was always under the impression when studying for the CCIE that if they use the word limit that means no shaping. Can someone help ease my conscience?
