[c-nsp] Cisco 2800 performance at BRAS funcationality

Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer) oboehmer at cisco.com
Mon Feb 20 06:38:40 EST 2006

Robert Hass <mailto:robhass at gmail.com> wrote on Monday, February 20,
2006 9:37 AM:

> 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:

MQC in a similar configuration as CAR has a higher impact, so I'd
continue to use CAR/rate-limit configuration..


More information about the cisco-nsp mailing list