Most likely yes, assuming all values are mostly default. Tnx, Arie
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015, 00:56 Mohammad Khalil <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Arie > Would configuring the below commands under the interface level do the > trick ? > > *mls qos trust cos* > > *mls qos trust dscp* > > BR, > Mohammad > > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 17:31:47 +0000 > > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Xconnect Precednce > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > By default the 7600 and 6500 (assuming mls qos is enabled) would not trust > incoming marked traffic, and classify it as BE. On egress they would > overwrite the DHCP value according to the ingress classification. > > So you need to look into the specific qos implementation of 6500/7600, > which is not trivial. > > The other thing you need to look into are the qos models for MPLS (uniform > and pipe) and how they apply on the 7600. > > Tnx, Arie > > On Sun, Sep 20, 2015, 08:23 Mohammad Khalil <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi arie , thanks for the reply > > My CE is 6509 > > > access-list 105 permit ip any any precedence routine log > > access-list 105 permit ip any any precedence priority log > > access-list 105 permit ip any any precedence immediate log > > access-list 105 permit ip any any precedence flash log > > access-list 105 permit ip any any precedence flash-override log > > access-list 105 permit ip any any precedence critical log > > access-list 105 permit ip any any precedence internet log > > access-list 105 permit ip any any precedence network log > > access-list 105 permit ip any any > > > > interface GigabitEthernet0/1.56 > > encapsulation dot1Q 56 > > ip address 10.3.3.1 255.255.255.0 > > ip access-group 105 in > > ip access-group 105 out > > > My PE configuration > > > interface vlan 56 > > xconnect x.x.x.x 56 encapsulation mpls > > > Thanks > > > BR, > > Mohammad > ------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2015 14:58:28 +0000 > Subject: Re: [c-nsp] Xconnect Precednce > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > > > Mohammed, > > Can you please provide the complete interface configuration? Is this the > PE or the CE? Which platform is it? > > Generally speaking, layer 2 pseudowires should use layer 2 COS for traffic > classification. > > Tnx, Arie > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015, 03:21 Mohammad Khalil <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all > I am trying to test different tos values between CEs > What am trying to test is default traffic which will fall into the routine > traffic and another flow which should fall in the critical traffic (tos=160) > > My access-list looks as below > > > access-list 105 permit ip any any precedence routine log > > access-list 105 permit ip any any precedence priority log > > access-list 105 permit ip any any precedence immediate log > > access-list 105 permit ip any any precedence flash log > > access-list 105 permit ip any any precedence flash-override > log > > access-list 105 permit ip any any precedence critical log > > access-list 105 permit ip any any precedence internet log > > access-list 105 permit ip any any precedence network log > > access-list 105 permit ip any any > > > > > interface GigabitEthernet0/1.56ip access-group 105 in > > ip access-group 105 out > > > ping 10.3.3.1 repeat 19 tos 160 > > ping 10.3.3.1 repeat 15 > > > > Probe#sh ip access-lists > 105 > > Extended IP access list 105 > > 10 permit ip any any precedence routine log (34 matches) > > > 20 permit ip any any precedence priority > log > > 30 permit ip any any precedence immediate > log > > 40 permit ip any any precedence flash log > > 50 permit ip any any precedence > flash-override log > > 60 permit ip any any precedence critical log > > > 70 permit ip any any precedence internet > log > > 80 permit ip any any precedence network > log > > 90 permit ip any any > The 19 ICMP packets should fall into the critical > I have tested this on GNS3 and it worked fine ! > Is there something global should be enabled on the PE which is 7606? > > BR,Mohammad > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
