Thanks, I don't want to enable global QOS (queuing) which 'mls qos' will enable. The default queues cause all kinds of trouble with our traffic (you can see details in another topic I created couple months back).
-- Randy www.FastServ.com ---------- Original Message ----------- From: "Randy McAnally" <[email protected]> To: Ian MacKinnon <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:13:24 -0400 Subject: Re: [c-nsp] service-policy on virtual interface > By 'not classify' I meant all of our traffic is in the same default > class. Could you verify that 'mls qos' is not needed globally before > you can do 'mls qos vlan-based' on an interface? > > Cheers > > -- > Randy > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > From: Ian MacKinnon <[email protected]> > To: Randy McAnally <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 16:05:57 +0100 > Subject: RE: [c-nsp] service-policy on virtual interface > > > Not seen problems turning on mls qos. > > We have on the physicals :- > > Int gi1/1 > > mls qos vlan-based > > mls qos trust dscp > > and a typical service policy looks like :- > > policy-map 10MegPolice > > class class-default > > police 10000000 26000 32000 conform-action transmit exceed- > > action transmit violate-action drop > > > > what do you mean you don't classify? > > > > Ian > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Randy McAnally [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: 08 September 2009 11:54 > > To: Ian MacKinnon; [email protected] > > Subject: RE: [c-nsp] service-policy on virtual interface > > > > 6500 platform. > > > > Last time we had 'mls qos' enabled we had massive speed/packet loss issues > > with interfaces over 40% utilization since we don't classify traffic. > > > > Is there any possible issues you might see? > > > > -- > > Randy > > > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > > From: Ian MacKinnon <[email protected]> > > To: Randy McAnally <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" > > <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 15:44:57 +0100 > > Subject: RE: [c-nsp] service-policy on virtual interface > > > > > Hi Randy, > > > What platform? > > > On 6500/7600 the answer is yes, you need mls qos vlan-based on the > > > physical interfaces and then you can police on the SVI. > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:cisco-nsp- > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Randy McAnally Sent: 08 > > > September 2009 11:40 To: [email protected] Subject: [c-nsp] > > > service-policy on virtual interface > > > > > > Do the same commands work e.g. 'service-policy input/output > > > FooPolicy' at the virtual interface level the same as they do on a > > > physical port, both in and out? > > > > > > I'm trying to set up rate limiting 'further up the line' rather than > > > at the network edge, so we can pool customer bandwidth and keep > > > inbound floods of traffic from being passed beyond the distribution layer. > > > > > > -- > > > Randy > > > _______________________________________________ > > > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > > > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > > > > Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.81/2350 - Release Date: > > > 09/07/09 18:03:00 > > > > > > -- > > > > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > > > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > > > If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. > > > Any offers or quotation of service are subject to formal specification. > > > Errors and omissions excepted. Please note that any views or > > > opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and > > > do not necessarily represent those of Lumison. Finally, the > > > recipient should check this email and any attachments for the > > > presence of viruses. Lumison accept no liability for any damage > > > caused by any virus transmitted by this email. > > ------- End of Original Message ------- > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > > Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.13.81/2350 - Release Date: > > 09/07/09 18:03:00 > > > > -- > > > > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended > > solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. > > If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. > > Any offers or quotation of service are subject to formal specification. > > Errors and omissions excepted. Please note that any views or > > opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and > > do not necessarily represent those of Lumison. Finally, the > > recipient should check this email and any attachments for the > > presence of viruses. Lumison accept no liability for any damage > > caused by any virus transmitted by this email. > ------- End of Original Message ------- > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ ------- End of Original Message ------- _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
