Thanks for clearing out things, I'll have to read more in order to apply what I am looking.
Have a nice day! >________________________________ > From: imad Abdallah <[email protected]> >To: Onur Gashi <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" ><[email protected]> >Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:45 AM >Subject: RE: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Traffic Shaping > > > >No problem. > > > > >Policing involves dropping (or other configurable options like altering the >dscp value) exceeding traffic which can be done in either directions; whereas >shaping involves queuing to reach the desired rate which can not be done on >the inbound. > > > > > > >________________________________ >Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:38:08 -0800 >From: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Traffic Shaping >To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > >Thanks for briefing! > > >I agree with your statements. And as for this "And this makes sense, as you >can not shape traffic that is already received on your interface!!!!", can you >police it? > > >Or all to be done is to police traffic in the outbound interface? > > >Sorry for all misunderstanding, I was really looking into how to police the >traffic as a common limit. > > >Thanks for your help. > > > >>________________________________ >> From: imad Abdallah <[email protected]> >>To: Onur Gashi <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" >><[email protected]> >>Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:30 AM >>Subject: RE: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Traffic Shaping >> >> >> >>Still a bit confused about your requirements :-) >> >> >>But two options: >> >> >>a) If you want to SHAPE traffic (using shape command or GTS); then you have >>to do it on the outbound And this makes sense, as you can not shape traffic >>that is already received on your interface!!!! >> >> >>b) if you want to police traffic (using police command or CAR); then you can >>choose whatever direction you like (inbound or outbound) >> >> >>Your e-mail subject is about Traffic shaping whereas the policy map uses >>"police"!! >> >> >> >>________________________________ >>Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 01:09:19 -0800 >>From: [email protected] >>Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Traffic Shaping >>To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> >> >>Hello, >> >>First of all sorry for all confusion, and thank you for your time! >> >> >>I'd like to rate limit two points of a clinet with two different vlans which >>are terminated in two sub-interfaces with the same policy-map. So basically >>the client would have a shared limit in both locations. >> >> >>So the client basically has a limit of max. 250Mbps in both locations >>together. I want to be able to rate limit the client in two different vlans >>with one limit. >> >> >>Thanks again! >> >> >> >> >> >>>________________________________ >>> From: imad Abdallah <[email protected]> >>>To: Onur Gashi <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" >>><[email protected]> >>>Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:52 AM >>>Subject: RE: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Traffic Shaping >>> >>> >>> >>>Hi Onur, >>> >>> >>>What would you exactly like to do with shaping that you can not accomplish >>>with outbound ts? >>> >>> >>>> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:34:36 -0800 >>>> From: [email protected] >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_RS] Traffic Shaping >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I've been trying to shape ingress traffic for two sub interfaces with a >>>> common class-map, so they will have a shared limit. So far unsuccessful... >>>> Tried to create a class-map to match a particular Access-list with the IP >>>> addresses of both sub interfaces, applied the class-map to policy-map, and >>>> tried to apply it to both sub interfaces, I think I need to apply this >>>> limit to the outbound interfaces, not to the sub interfaces where the >>>> traffic comes inbound. >>>> >>>> class-map match-all NET >>>> match access-group name NET-ACL >>>> >>>> policy-map NET >>>> class NET >>>> police cir 256000000 >>>> >>>> service-policy output NET --- to sub interface 1/1.240 >>>> service-policy output NET --- to sub interface 1/1.241 >>>> >>>> ip access-list standard NET-ACL >>>> permit 10.15.16.0 0.0.0.3 >>>> permit 10.15.16.4 0.0.0.3 >>>> >>>> If there is a possible solution to avoid applying this policy-map to the >>>> outbound interface, I'd like to see it. >>>> >>>> Is there a way to achieve this? >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Onur Gashi >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please >>>> visit www.ipexpert.com >>>> >>>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out >>>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com >>>> >>>> http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out www.PlatinumPlacement.com http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_rs
