So, Chuck, was the wrong bandwidth statement problem ?
Sasa Milic wrote: > > You have specified bandwidth 64000, shouldn't it be just 64 ? > With 64000, router thinks that there is enough bandwidth available, > and policy-map doesn't do anything, but drops occur later, at > interface level buffers. > > Chuck's Long Road wrote: > > > > ""Steven A. Ridder"" wrote in message > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > that's the best command to show the output > > > > > > > CL: unfortunately, as the following output indicates, even when all packets > > were being dropped ( apparently ) there was no indication of this. > > > > Router_1#sh policy int s 0 > > > > Serial0 > > > > Service-policy output: 200filter (1289) > > > > Class-map: pingr5 (match-all) (1291/2) > > 0 packets, 0 bytes > > 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps > > Match: ip precedence 5 (1295) > > police: > > 8000 bps, 1500 limit, 1500 extended limit > > conformed 0 packets, 0 bytes; action: transmit > > exceeded 0 packets, 0 bytes; action: drop > > conformed 0 bps, exceed 0 bps violate 0 bps > > > > Class-map: pingr6 (match-all) (1299/3) > > 876 packets, 73152 bytes > > 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps > > Match: ip precedence 6 (1303) > > police: > > 8000 bps, 1500 limit, 1500 extended limit > > conformed 60 packets, 7872 bytes; action: transmit > > exceeded 0 packets, 0 bytes; action: drop > > conformed 0 bps, exceed 0 bps violate 0 bps > > > > Class-map: pingr7 (match-all) (1307/4) > > 0 packets, 0 bytes > > 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps > > Match: ip precedence 7 (1311) > > police: > > 8000 bps, 1500 limit, 1500 extended limit > > conformed 0 packets, 0 bytes; action: transmit > > exceeded 0 packets, 0 bytes; action: drop > > conformed 0 bps, exceed 0 bps violate 0 bps > > > > Class-map: class-default (match-any) (1315/0) > > 19228 packets, 27705238 bytes > > 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps > > Match: any (1319) > > Router_1# > > > > > -- > > > > > > RFC 1149 Compliant. > > > > > > > > > > > > ""Chuck's Long Road"" wrote in message > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > > > Chuck's Long Road wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm putting in some rack time to review certain QoS features. > > > > > > Configuration > > > > > > is not really a problem. MQC makes this really easy :-> > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I am attempting to observe results, and I am finding > > > > > > that I am > > > > > > unable to make bad things happen, such as packet drops. > > > > > > > > > > > > I am pinging from three different routers on a token ring to 3 > > > > > > other routers > > > > > > via a 64K frame relay. The router that bridges the token ring > > > > > > and frame > > > > > > networks has the policy configured. > > > > > > > > > > You would have to exceed 64 Kbps for drops to occur, wouldn't you? Do > > > you > > > > > have any idea how much bandwidth you're using on the Token Ring side? > > > What > > > > > does show int show for load? > > > > > > > > > > I'm thinking you'll need to do more than ping. The problem with > > Cisco's > > > > ping > > > > > is that it doesn't let you specify how much time between pings, > > > sometimes > > > > > called an interval. The timeout value is for unsucessful pings. But > > what > > > > you > > > > > need is a configurable interval between the sending of pings, > > > successful > > > > or > > > > > not. A real operating system or real ping tool would let you do this. > > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > CL: I finally was able to get some bad things to happen. > > > > > > > > token ring domain---- border router ----- frame relay domain > > > > > > > > I just started pinging from both sides, over an extended period of > time. > > > To > > > > judget from the result, given the rudimentary configurations, it takes > a > > > > minute or two for the rate limits to apply. There is an "average" > > traffic > > > > rate. > > > > > > > > three routers from each domain pinging the other side, packet sizes > 1500 > > > > bytes, and I lowered the timeout value to 1 second from the default > two > > > > seconds. By the time I added the sixth router's traffic, everybody > > started > > > > timing out. It took a minute or two for traffic to start going through > > > again > > > > after I stopped traffic from a router or two. I'll have to look into > the > > > > defaults more closely. > > > > > > > > There has got to be a better show command than the "show policy-map > > > > interface etc" for this. > > > > > > > > Back to the docs. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ping in the MS-DOS prompt on Windows doesn't have this either, at > > least > > > > not > > > > > the version I'm using. But ping under UNIX does, although it may not > > let > > > > you > > > > > set the interval low enough. Some UNIXes have a -f (flood) option > that > > > > will > > > > > let you really whip the pings out. And a ping utility would let you > do > > > > that > > > > > too. For example, I use iNetTools from WildPackets. > > > > > > > > > > Are you trying to consume bandwidth just by using router tools or > > could > > > > you > > > > > use a host also? Then there are many more options, of course. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, what are some other ways to consume bandwidth by just > configuring > > > > > router options. Gazillions of SAPs? Gazillions of AppleTalk networks > > > with > > > > > RTMP? Can you FTP or RCP stuff to and from the routers? > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________ > > > > > > > > > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > > > > > www.troubleshootingnetworks.com > > > > > www.priscilla.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > class-map match-all pingr6 > > > > > > match ip precedence 6 > > > > > > class-map match-all pingr7 > > > > > > match ip precedence 7 > > > > > > class-map match-all pingr5 > > > > > > match ip precedence 5 > > > > > > ! > > > > > > policy-map 200filter > > > > > > class pingr5 > > > > > > police 8000 1500 1500 conform-action transmit > > > > > > exceed-action drop > > > > > > class pingr6 > > > > > > police 8000 1500 1500 conform-action transmit > > > > > > exceed-action drop > > > > > > class pingr7 > > > > > > police 8000 1500 1500 conform-action transmit > > > > > > exceed-action drop > > > > > > ! > > > > > > ! > > > > > > interface Serial0 > > > > > > bandwidth 64000 > > > > > > > > > > > > ( clockrate on the frame switch is set to 64K ) > > > > > > > > > > > > ip address 192.168.50.1 255.255.255.0 > > > > > > encapsulation frame-relay > > > > > > ip ospf priority 100 > > > > > > service-policy output 200filter > > > > > > no fair-queue > > > > > > frame-relay map ip 192.168.50.2 102 broadcast nocompress > > > > > > frame-relay map ip 192.168.50.3 103 broadcast nocompress > > > > > > frame-relay map ip 192.168.50.4 104 broadcast nocompress > > > > > > ! > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm using extended ping, and setting the packet size to 1500, > > > > > > and the ToS > > > > > > bit to match the values in the class-maps. > > > > > > > > > > > > Replies appear to be slow, but nothing is being dropped, as I > > > > > > would expect. > > > > > > Even when I throw in traffic from the border router just to > > > > > > fill up > > > > > > bandwidth. > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone got some thoughts on "proof of concept" for policing? > > > > > > > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > www.chuckslongroad.info > > > > > > like my web site? > > > > > > take the survey! Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=54381&t=54134 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
