But I have an RSP 720 with a DFC3C. According to: http://tinyurl.com/u4rxr "Aggregate rate-limiting location: Ingress port or VLAN and egress VLAN or Layer 3 port" and http://tinyurl.com/ypecm7 "PFC QoS supports VLAN-based QoS with DFC3s installed. You can attach policy maps to Layer 3 interfaces for application of PFC QoS to egress traffic. VLAN-based or port-based PFC QoS on Layer 2 ports is not relevant to application of PFC QoS to egress traffic on Layer 3 interfaces.
By default, PFC QoS uses policy maps attached to LAN ports. For ports configured as Layer 2 LAN ports with the switchport keyword, you can configure PFC QoS to use policy maps attached to a VLAN. Ports not configured with the switchport keyword are not associated with a VLAN. . . . You can attach an output policy map to a Layer 3 interface (either a LAN port configured as a Layer 3 interface or a VLAN interface) to apply a policy map to egress traffic. . . . The PFC supports both ingress and egress PFC QoS, which includes ingress and egress policing." Perhaps I am missing something obvious between all these statements. Or perhaps I have my configuration set up incorrectly to take advantage of the purported egress features? Regards, Frank -----Original Message----- From: Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 2:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [c-nsp] One or two policy and class maps? Frank, according do http://tinyurl.com/yrk2al, you cannot perform egress policing on a Vlan, we can only apply egress policers on the ports, which will likely not achieve what you want. oli Frank Bulk <> wrote on Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:09 PM: > Anyone have any thoughts on this? I also learned that my service > policy is not working, either, so suggestions to rectify it would be > helpful. > > I'm running c7600rsp72043-advipservicesk9-mz.122-33.SRB1 > > Regards, > > Frank > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank Bulk > Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 9:36 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [c-nsp] One or two policy and class maps? > > I have a 7609-S with the RSP720 and PFC3C, which supports in and > outbound QoS flows. > > Should I be using one or two policy and class maps? The first > method, if I understand this correctly, has a single service policy > in configuration that is moot because there will never be matches one > direction. The second one, while more complex, eliminates checking > flow ACL matches that will never exist. > > This: > > class-map match-any test-networks > match access-group name test-policer-inbound > match access-group name test-policer-outbound > > policy-map test-policer > class test-networks > police cir 2000000 pir 2000000 conform-action transmit > exceed-action drop > > interface Vlan203 > ip address 167.a.b.c 255.255.255.252 > service-policy input test-policer > service-policy output test-policer > end > > or this: > > class-map match-any test-inbound-networks > match access-group name test-policer-inbound > > class-map match-any test-outbound-networks > match access-group name test-policer-outbound > > policy-map test-inbound-policer > class test-inbound-networks > police cir 2000000 pir 2000000 conform-action transmit > exceed-action drop > > policy-map test-outbound-policer > class test-outbound-networks > police cir 2000000 pir 2000000 conform-action transmit > exceed-action drop > > interface Vlan203 > ip address 167.a.b.c 255.255.255.252 > service-policy input test-inbound-policer > service-policy output test-outbound-policer > end > > The rest of the config can be found below. > > Regards, > > Frank > ===================================================== > vlan 203 > name Test > > interface GigabitEthernet1/5 > description Test > switchport > switchport access vlan 203 > speed 100 > duplex full > > ip access-list extended test-policer_inbound > permit ip any d.e.f.0 0.0.0.255 > ip access-list extended test-policer_outbound > permit ip d.e.f.0 0.0.0.255 any > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
