On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 03:26, <nasir.sha...@bt.com> wrote: > Hi, > I have an 2621XM running c2600-ik9s-mz.123-22a.bin and I noticed > something strange. > Reports were showing utilisation of more than 100%. This can be true in > some cases but for E1 interfaces I always thought that the router > calculates the correct bw depending on the number of channels used. e.g > > router#sh run int s0/0:0 > Building configuration... > > Current configuration : 318 bytes > ! > interface Serial0/0:0 <<no bandwidth configured>> > description ** To PE *** > no ip address > encapsulation frame-relay IETF > tx-ring-limit 2 > tx-queue-limit 2 > frame-relay lmi-type ansi > max-reserved-bandwidth 100 > service-policy input IN-S0/0:0 > service-policy output OUT-S0/0:0 > end > ! > router#sh interface Serial0/0:0 > Serial0/0:0 is up, line protocol is up > Hardware is PowerQUICC Serial > description ** To PE *** > MTU 1500 bytes, BW 1984 Kbit, DLY 20000 usec, <<bw 1984 kbps>> > reliability 255/255, txload 6/255, rxload 56/255 > Encapsulation FRAME-RELAY IETF, loopback not set > <<output omitted>> > Timeslot(s) Used:1-31, SCC: 0, Transmitter delay is 0 flags > <<number of timeslots used>> > > But the bandwidth calculated for the sub-interface has a different > value: > > rotuer#sh run int s0/0:0.101 > Building configuration... > > Current configuration : 175 bytes > ! > interface Serial0/0:0.101 point-to-point << also no bw statement>> > description Primary VPN WAN Link > ip unnumbered Loopback10 > ip flow ingress > no cdp enable > frame-relay interface-dlci 101 > > ! > rotuer#sh interface Serial0/0:0.101 > Serial0/0:0.101 is up, line protocol is up > Hardware is PowerQUICC Serial > Description: Primary VPN WAN Link > Interface is unnumbered. Using address of Loopback10 > MTU 1500 bytes, BW 1024 Kbit, DLY 20000 usec, <<bw 1024 kbps>> > reliability 255/255, txload 4/255, rxload 32/255 > Encapsulation FRAME-RELAY IETF > Last clearing of "show interface" counters never > > Any ideas if this is a bug? Am I missing something here? > > Thanks in advance > > > Nasir Shaikh
I would guess that your 31 channel E1 was upgraded sometime along the way from a 16 channel service (16x64=1024). The bandwidth of the sub-interface was assigned when it was created and would not dynamically adjust after more channels were assigned to the main interface. Andy gawul00+c...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/