[c-nsp] 6500 SUP720 High Latency and Jitter issues

[Tim Stevenson]

Yes, this basically rate limits traffic destined to any of the router's 
interfaces to the specified rate. But the downsides are:
- set it too low & everything breaks
- it gives no preference to any traffic over any other traffic, for that 
you need CoPP.

Tim

At 05:15 PM 5/30/2005, Andrew Fort pronounced:
>Jared Mauch wrote:
>
> >    You may also want to enable control plane policing on your s720
> > in order to limit traffic directed to the MFSC.
> >
> >    keeping ICMP and other traffic down is something everyone should
> > be looking at doing.
> >
> >    - jared
> >
>
>76k related: we found that using
>
>'mls rate-limit unicast cef receive <x> <y>'
>
>was quite useful in stopping the traffic from even getting to the MSFC
>to be dealt with by any software 'protection'.  This is on "WS-SUP720",
>though, I don't know if this is still required on 3B/3BXL.  With
>reasonable values of <x>, the box was now able to sustain routing
>protocols despite being flooded with several Mpps (directed at its IP
>interfaces) via traffic generators.  Actually any value of x made a
>difference, IIRC, but setting it too low probably has negative consequences.
>
>I'd be interested to hear if others use this command! (or if it has
>known deadliness if <x> is too low) :-)
>
>-andrew
>_______________________________________________
>cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
>archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/



Tim Stevenson, tstevens at cisco.com
Routing & Switching CCIE #5561
Technical Marketing Engineer, Catalyst 6500
Cisco Systems, http://www.cisco.com
IP Phone: 408-526-6759
********************************************************
The contents of this message may be *Cisco Confidential*
and are intended for the specified recipients only.