On Thu, 17 May 2001, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> Any ideas? I don't see any examples in the docs beyond "all udp" or a
> rate-shape on an interface, with no access-list.
>
> Should I only use an extended list? What would the proper order be, ie:
> permit ip any x.x.x.x or permit ip x.x.x.x any? Or should I be denying?
> The examples for udp show a permit...
Have a look at
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/12cgcr/qos_c/qcpart1/qccar.htm#17754
I've always used extented access lists. The "proper order" depends on
whether you're shaping input or output. Assume you're shaping 10.0.0.0/24
which is routed to an IP reachable on f0/0.
This should allow 10.0.0.0/24 to receive data at 128k and transmit at
256k.
int f0/0
rate-limit output access-group 101 128000 8000 8000 conform transmit
exceed drop
rate-limit input access-group 102 256000 8000 8000 conform transmit
exceed drop
access-list 101 permit ip any 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255
access-list 102 permit ip 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.255 any
Does anyone know if Cisco plans to support named ip access-lists in
CAR rate-limiting? Using numbered access-lists can get to be a pain when
you're doing alot of rate-limiting with separate rate-limits for different
IP ranges.
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route System Administrator | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:38 EDT