[c-nsp] Cisco 2800 performance at BRAS funcationality

[Robert Hass]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) wrote:

>No, those features should still be CEF-switched, but each of these
>features (PPPoX encaps/decaps, CAR, uRPF) has an impact on forwarding
>performance. "show proc cpu" should show most of the CPU usage be in
>interrupt switching (the 2nd figure in 5 sec util being almost as high
>as the first one).
>
>> But what about ISR 2811 performance in 'Process Switching'
>> (CAR+uRPF+PPPoE VPDN). Should I have performance like in Fast/CEF
>> Switching (120kpps declared in specification) ?

Maybe I also should think about some optimilizations inside my BRAS
configuration. Is MQC police is faster (less CPU using) that old
rate-limit on the interface ? Below output from one of my Virtual-Access
interfaces:

...
interface Virtual-Access30
 ip unnumbered Loopback6
 ip verify unicast reverse-path
 no ip redirects
 no ip unreachables
 no ip proxy-arp
 rate-limit input 128000 16000 16000 conform-action transmit exceed-action drop
 rate-limit output 512000 32000 32000 conform-action transmit exceed-action drop
 no logging event link-status
 no snmp trap link-status
 no snmp ifindex persist
 no clns route-cache
end
...

Robert