Thanks Adam, sh lpts pifib hardware police location 0/0/cpu0
....shows all 0's in the drop column, but at the bottom it shows... RP/0/RSP0/CPU0:9k#sh lpts pifib hardware police location 0/0/cpu0 | in drop Mon Apr 29 08:22:55.180 CDT Packets dropped by deleted entries: 71429 ...any idea what that is ? Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Adam Vitkovsky [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 3:31 AM To: 'Aaron'; [email protected] Subject: RE: [c-nsp] ipsla - latency - related to cellular backhaul Hi Aron, Well I believe that any type of active probe that has a responder at the other end is a valid (not necessarily dead accurate though) delay/jitter measurement approach. By a responder I mean a process that will time-stamp the probe-packet before and after processing allowing for processing delay elimination. And assuming the routers are well time-synced you can get accurate delay/jitter measurements. So this includes IP SLA as well as Y.1731 for CFM. So while you can use IP SLA between two (PE routers) PW endpoints you can use CFM between two of yours customer demarcation switches for L2VPNs. LPTS (Local Packet transport Service) it's like a routing process for the router itself directing which packet needs to go to which RSP or Line Card and can be used for per-line-card CoPP like functionality. As there's a default set of flows and their respectful policers specified you may need to adjust the value for let's say MPLS OAM in order to avoid drops in your PW pings. You can check for the drops using cmd: sh lpts pifib hardware police location 0/0/cpu0 you can adjust the values with: lpts pifib hardware police location 0/0/CPU0 flow mpls oam rate 500 -don't forget to do it per line-card adam -----Original Message----- From: cisco-nsp [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Aaron Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 7:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [c-nsp] ipsla - latency - related to cellular backhaul I have seen some latency (measured using ipsla icmp/udp/mpls pw pings) beyond my agreements with some of our cellular backhaul customers.. We are concerned that if/when they ask to see their sla measurements for their cell towers that we won't be looking very good Cisco Tac is telling me that pings of any type (icmp/udp/mpls pw) are not the way to truly measure the network and that I should be using CFM/OAM type stuff. I showed cisco tac a mpls pw ping test I did and it shows drops/time-outs occasionally (!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! etc) Tac says that this drop and the latency seen using various ipsla pings is expected since all pings are treated less than everything else and could be getting policed by LPTS (I don't know what LPTS is) What do y'all think about all this? Aaron _______________________________________________ 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/
