Do you have a good link. I would like to know more. Thanks.

Why such a change from the PFC1/MSFC1. The concept you describe
below seems to be a big change. I knew there were intergrating but I could 
still define the seperation between router and switch with the PFC1/MSFC1.
GOTTA BE ON YOUR Ps and Qs or you get left behind.

Thats why I love this job! 

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Sinclair [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 9:17 AM
To: Newell Ryan D SrA 18 CS/SCBT; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: CEF on 6500 and ACLs [7:63175]


Some comments in-line.  It is becoming (has become?)  very difficult if  not
impossible to tease out the "switch" from the "router"  with PFC2/MSFC2.
This box has the functions of both, and they are integrated in the hardware.
For example,  the Layer 2 switching engine, the Qos engine and the ACL
engine are combined in the Lyra ASIC.


> With CEF (PFC 2) if there is an adjacency for the destination host, to my
> understanding, that packet will never be routed. It should just be
rewritten
> by the PFC 2 (SP). If this correct then these are my questions.

The packet is still "routed", it just is never seen by the piece of hardware
we call the MSFC

>
> 1. How does an IOS ACL affect the rewrite on the switch?
> 2. Where on the switch (SP) can I see that it knows an IOS ACL is
> there?

On that part of the box (which is both switch and router) that we can view
through the "IOS window"

> 3. Is changing the flow mask on PFC 2(SP) just for Netflow stats.

YES, exactly.

> Applying an IOS ACL had no effect on the flow mask.

YES, exactly

> 4. Do MLS commands have on MSFC change anything?

I believe the MSFC2 can act as an RP for a Cat 5000 doing MLS.  I believe
the MLS commands there are for that purpose.

>
> Thanks!




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=63193&t=63175
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to