Hello,
What kind of hardware are you using? The behavior is different on MPC vs DPC.
The MX80 family use built-in MPC cards.
My testing has shown the following with regards to queue commands:
DPC:
-Rate-limit: works as expected, queue is policed.
-Exact: Not supported
-Shaping-Rate: Command
Humm. My understand, at least with the command sets I'm use to using, is that
you do classification on ingress and then queuing and marking on egress. When
you do classification, the packets are assigned to a Forwarding Class (FC)
inside the box. This makes sure the box gives those packets
Hi Serge,
You raised a good point. The behaviour in this case could be infact hardware
dependent. I am testing on an MX5 (MX80 with 5G license, OS version 11.2 I
think). I have not tested on other hardware platforms.
Please note that according to the doc I sent before, my interpretation is
Yes, that's just what I said in so few words :-)
Classification = ingress
Queuing = egress
From: Serge Vautour sergevaut...@yahoo.camailto:sergevaut...@yahoo.ca
Reply-To: Serge Vautour se...@nbnet.nb.camailto:se...@nbnet.nb.ca
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 10:06:37 -0700
To: dhanks
More to the point I believe the original commenter was talking about
packet marking, not queuing or classification :)
And here I believe that junos doesn't work well... If you have a link
that carries both transit and newly injected traffic you are stuffed
when you try to perform a rewrite to
What are you considering packet marking? In Junos you can set the
forwarding-class and loss-priority in about five different places; this is
typically done on the ingress interface, but can also be done on the
egress interface.
Not sure I'm following your scenario of transit traffic (which I
Hi Caillin,
I can see your points. You think that it is logical to mark traffic as it
comes to the router, and leave it untouched, as it leaves your router. This
is what I used to think of QoS (as I come from the Cisco world). However, I
need to rethink when getting to know Juniper.
With Juniper
If you're having a hard time writing
the proper code-points to a packet, I would assume the packets are
classified correctly.
s/correctly/incorrectly/
___
juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp@puck.nether.net
If you want to trust the code-points on ingress traffic, then just use a
behavior aggregate and place the trusted traffic into the correct
forwarding-class; no need to re-classify it. Technically you don't even need
the BA to classify trusted packets, but makes the process more understandable
9 matches
Mail list logo
