Hi Arie, i heard there should depend on which ios version and which kind of configirations u use will impact the action about hw or software switching. On Nov 1, 2012 12:56 AM, "Arie Vayner (avayner)" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yes, same concept. > Better run on SXI or later to avoid issues with punting to the RP if the > next-hop is down... > > Another option is to use something like that: > > > track 1 interface GigabitEthernet3/1 line-protocol > delay up 15 > ! > track 2 interface GigabitEthernet3/2 line-protocol > delay up 15 > ! > route-map test2 permit 10 > match ip address 100 > set ip next-hop verify-availability 10.2.3.3 10 track 1 > set ip next-hop verify-availability 10.2.2.3 20 track 2 > > > Arie > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Magee [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 09:13 > To: Arie Vayner (avayner) > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: RE: PBR on sup720 > > Hi Arie, > > Does this also apply to the SX version? > > Thanks, > > Paul > > -----Original Message----- > From: Arie Vayner (avayner) [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 31 October 2012 15:59 > To: Paul Magee; [email protected] > Subject: RE: PBR on sup720 > > Paul, > > Nop... All packets are handled in HW assuming your actions are supported... > Performance should be the same as regular routing as long as it's done in > HW and you do not exceed TCAM resources. > > In some older IOS versions there were issues with what happens when the > next hop is not available... Packets were punted to the RP. This is not the > case after SRD (I think). > > Check out: > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/docs/routers/7600/ios/12.2SR/configuration/guide/cef.html > > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/docs/routers/7600/ios/12.2SR/configuration/guide/layer3.html#wp1027016 > > Arie > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Magee > Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 08:40 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [c-nsp] PBR on sup720 > > Hello, > > > > Does anyone have any experience of using policy based routing with > vrf-lite on a Sup 720? > > > > I gather that the first packet is handled in software and from that point > on the route exists in the cef table. Is that a big performance hit? What > sort of throughput/number of connections can I expect to be able to handle > before everything comes crashing to its knees? Do Cisco have any figures on > this hidden away anywhere? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Paul > > --------------------------------------- -- > ********************************************* Confidentiality: The contents > of this e-mail and any attachments transmitted with it are intended to be > confidential to the intended recipient; and may be privileged or otherwise > protected from disclosure. If you are not an intended recipient of this > e-mail, do not duplicate or redistribute it by any means. Please delete it > and any attachments and notify the sender that you have received it in > error. This e-mail is sent by a William Hill PLC group company. The William > Hill group companies include, among others, William Hill PLC (registered > number 4212563), William Hill Organization Limited (registered number > 278208), William Hill US HoldCo Inc, WHG (International) Limited > (registered number 99191) and WHG Trading Limited (registered number > 101439). Each of William Hill PLC, William Hill Organization Limited is > registered in England and Wales and has its registered office at Greenside > Hou! > se, 50 Station Road, Wood Green, London N22 7TP. William Hill U.S. > HoldCo, Inc. is 160 Greentree Drive, Suite 101, Dover 19904, Kent, > Delaware, United States of America. Each of WHG (International) Limited and > WHG Trading Limited is registered in Gibraltar and has its registered > office at 6/1 Waterport Place, Gibraltar. Unless specifically indicated > otherwise, the contents of this e-mail are subject to contract; and are not > an official statement, and do not necessarily represent the views, of > William Hill PLC, its subsidiaries or affiliated companies. Please note > that neither William Hill PLC, nor its subsidiaries and affiliated > companies can accept any responsibility for any viruses contained within > this e-mail and it is your responsibility to scan any emails and their > attachments. William Hill PLC, its subsidiaries and affiliated companies > may monitor e-mail traffic data and also the content of e-mails for > effective operation of the e-mail system, or for security, purpose! > s. ********************************************* > _______________________________________________ > 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/
