On Mon, Jul 16, 2007, Rodney Dunn wrote: > > Why would you police/bandwidth on inbound data? You've already > > received it. > > I used to argue that same point. But I've since backed off > of it a bit. The reason is a deployment scenario where a > user (customer) connects but has multiple egress interfaces > towards the core/destination. You want to provide them some > form of per remote shaping/policing. Meaning you want to provide > the same service towards the remote irregardless of the egress > path to get there. So if you can apply the policy to the interface > for that specific user on ingress (their attachment circuit) it > does make the concept of shaping/queueing relevant.
Oh, I'd understand that for something bigger than an 876. Thats why I then use marking on incoming and policers/aggregate policers on egress interfaces; trying to get all the QoS features needed on the (lowish-end) L3-switch platforms gets tricky. Adrian _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
