Thanks for sharing the 6509/CAR experience. You just saved me a lot of
time ;)
I also looked at the 3550 and 4000 series, they have the Gige port
density I need as well as QOS per port capability. I also really like
the fact that they don't have the IOS and CatOS, like the 6509/MSFC2
architecture. I found a study done, but was curious if anyone has had the
chance to play with the 3550 or 4000 yet?
Also, did you find any perfomance delay with multiple QOS ACLs on a port
within CatOS?
-Kat
Here's the study I found:
http://www.etestinglabs.com/main/reports/cisco11_01.pdf
On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, McMaster, Jay wrote:
> with the msfc2/pfc2 car does not work. been there, done that and found out
> the hard way. we migrated from a 7200 platform and modified the config from
> "int fast 0/0.xxx" to int "Vlan xxx" and pasted all of the cust. configs
> into the msfc2...including CAR statements. CAR had no effect on traffic
> policing.
>
> this was about a year ago and our local cisco se talked to a product manager
> and dev eng about the issue. i ?believe? packets are switched in the PFC2
> (TCAM) and CAR policy is not downloaded into it. ACL's are downloaded as
> policy into the PFC2, however, i believe unless the acl has a "log"
> statement, it doesn't touch the msfc2 either.
>
> policing (qos acl's) in the CatOS works well for us. some of the IOS acl
> features do not exist yet (i.e. time-of-day).
>
> cheers,
>
> j
>
> BTW: i thought CAR *was* a policer...
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:07 EDT