On Monday, February 24, 2014 10:52:16 PM Christian Kratzer
wrote:
Reading between the lines of Gerts mail I saw the words
line rate ...
I understand the carriers desire to offer various
bandwidth options between 100mbit/s abd 1git/s.
I just don't fully trust their shaping/policing
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 12:14:16 AM Gert Doering
wrote:
Indeed. I deeply distrust 2Mbit/s on ethernet thingies
and such, though that stuff seems to work surprisingly
well today - *better* than some of the 2Mbit via ATM
VC, with a carrier not being able to tell us which
shaping values
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 03:21:13 AM Eric Louie wrote:
Thanks, Pshem. I'll try it on 15.2(4) and see if it
works.
Just so you know, egress policing for all queues (not just
the LLQ) is now supported on the ME3600X.
Mark.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:29:35AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
But by and large, modern routing equipment does policing and
shaping really well for this to no longer be an issue.
Well. My problem is, I can't always forklift to the latest and greatest
in routing equipment - while our 7200s
Hi,
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:29:35AM +0200, Mark Tinka wrote:
But by and large, modern routing equipment does policing and
shaping really well for this to no longer be an issue.
Well. My problem is, I can't always forklift to the latest and
Hello.
We also do it in the same manner but usually on physical ports only (one port
per customer on most devices.)
policy-map 10mbit-out
description 10mbit output
class class-default
shape average 1000
interface GigabitEthernet0/19
description cust: [10mbit]
no switchport
vrf
Hi all,
I have a test LNS in the lab and I'm trying to configure per-session
policing, controlled by RADIUS. I can successfully get the policy
applied but whatever I do it seems to only police IPv4.
I'm using a 7200 (NPE-400) running 15.1(3)S3.
Just to confirm this behaviour is still
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 02:05 +, Blake Pfankuch - Mailing List wrote:
I am fairly new to VRF's however I think I have this sorted out. I
believe I can do a VRF definition for each of the environments, and
then assign the vlan interfaces to each VRF. Something like this.
Please bear with my
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:02:00AM +, Steve Glendinning wrote:
Just to confirm this behaviour is still present in 15.2(4)S4 on c7200. QOS
policers applied to VPDN sessions only ever apply to IPv4 traffic, IPv6 is
completely unpoliced.
I can't see why anyone would ever want that, have
Greetings,
I’ve been trying to evaluate 6PE as a transition mechanism lately and I’ve
stumbled upon something I didn’t initially expert. My understanding of 6PE is
as follows ( and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong ☺ ) : PE-A and PE-B peer
over IPv4, they exchange routes and labels. Packets
hi.
note: I haven;t touched 6PE in a while, so I might not be 100% accurate:
I’ve been trying to evaluate 6PE as a transition mechanism lately and
I’ve stumbled upon something I didn’t initially expert. My understanding
of 6PE is as follows ( and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong ☺ ) :
PE-A
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 11:36:21 AM Gert Doering
wrote:
Well. My problem is, I can't always forklift to the
latest and greatest in routing equipment - while our
7200s will shape just fine, they won't go much faster
than maybe 50 mbit/s with shaping. OTOH our 6500s will
handle any
On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 11:45:37 AM Christian Kratzer
wrote:
All this seems to work far too well these days and the
expectation seems to be that you can define products at
any bandwidth and the the right thing (tm) will just
happen.
We have found policing in both directions to work
13 matches
Mail list logo
