As always, it depends on your criteria! Watch the lab for details. But yes, you have multiple things to think about there other than just straight policing! Scott
_____ From: Derek Winchester [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 7:52 PM To: Victor Cappuccio Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Shape vs Police question So to clarify, are you stating that the response/answer could be shaping or LLQ? Well the fact that LLQ only works in time of congestion negates LLQ, so the answer would be shaping. Is there any other answers. I don't want to be fuzzy right, i think this discussion has open up the possibility that limit could mean more than just policing and can include more than just shaping. On 2/17/08, Victor Cappuccio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: hmmm right.. Thanks On Feb 18, 2008 1:35 AM, Scott Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The "priority" keyword only polices during times of congestion. but yes, that is an added feature as well! 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: <chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/cb_transparent_l.gif> <chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/famfamfam/us.gif> <chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif> <chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif> <chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif> <chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif> +1.810.326.1444 <chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/cb_transparent_r.gif> Fax: +1.810.454.0130 http://www.ipexpert.com _____ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Victor Cappuccio Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 6:50 PM To: Derek Winchester Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Shape vs Police question LLQ when the traffic exceed the configured Priority it gets dropped R1#conf ter Enter configuration commands, one per line. End with CNTL/Z. R1(config)#access-list 101 permit ip any any pre 3 R1(config)#class-map TEST R1(config-cmap)#ma access-gr 101 R1(config-cmap)#exit R1(config)#policy-map TEST R1(config-pmap)#class TEST R1(config-pmap-c)#prio 250 R1(config-pmap-c)#exit R1(config-pmap)#int s1/1 R1(config-if)#serv out TEST R1(config-if)#do show policy-map int s1/1 Serial1/1 Service-policy output: TEST Class-map: TEST (match-all) 0 packets, 0 bytes 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps Match: access-group 101 Queueing Strict Priority Output Queue: Conversation 264 Bandwidth 250 (kbps) Burst 6250 (Bytes) (pkts matched/bytes matched) 0/0 (total drops/bytes drops) 0/0 Class-map: class-default (match-any) 1 packets, 84 bytes 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps Match: any R1(config-if)# R1#ping Protocol [ip]: Target IP address: 3.3.3.3 Repeat count [5]: 10 Datagram size [100]: 1000 Timeout in seconds [2]: 0 Extended commands [n]: y Source address or interface: Type of service [0]: 0x60 Set DF bit in IP header? [no]: Validate reply data? [no]: Data pattern [0xABCD]: Loose, Strict, Record, Timestamp, Verbose[none]: Sweep range of sizes [n]: Type escape sequence to abort. Sending 10, 1000-byte ICMP Echos to 3.3.3.3, timeout is 0 seconds: .......... Success rate is 0 percent (0/10) R1#show policy-map int s1/1 Serial1/1 Service-policy output: TEST Class-map: TEST (match-all) 10 packets, 10040 bytes 5 minute offered rate 2000 bps, drop rate 2000 bps Match: access-group 101 Queueing Strict Priority Output Queue: Conversation 264 Bandwidth 250 (kbps) Burst 6250 (Bytes) (pkts matched/bytes matched) 10/10040 (total rops/bytes drops) 4/4016 Class-map: class-default (match-any) 15 packets, 1092 bytes 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps Match: any R1# Thanks -- Victor Cappuccio www.vcappuccio.wordpress.com On Feb 18, 2008 12:44 AM, Derek Winchester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In regards to llq I believe that it wont limit but guarantee the bandwidth so you can spike above the configured amount if available. On 2/17/08, Victor Cappuccio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Derek, > > I heard this question before, I would agree on your answer, but what about > also using, LLQ within a CBWFQ, in addition of that priority queue is > serviced with a strict priority scheduler in which I do not see any , and in > the event of congestion, if the priority queue traffic exceeds the bandwidth > guarantee, a congestion-aware policer is used to drop the exceeding traffic. > > Just a thought > Thank > > -- > Victor Cappuccio > www.vcappuccio.wordpress.com > > > On Feb 18, 2008 12:23 AM, Derek Winchester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > 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? > > > > > > -- Derek S. Winchester www.myprofessorvoip.com www.winchester1.com www.derekspeaks.org -- Victor Cappuccio www.vcappuccio.wordpress.com -- Derek S. Winchester www.myprofessorvoip.com www.winchester1.com www.derekspeaks.org
