[c-nsp] 7600 Linecard decisision

[Arie Vayner (avayner)]

The 7600/6500 can do classification and marking in hardware (actually it
does it even if you do not want it in some cases...)
This is the right place to read about it:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat6000/122sx/swcg/q
os.htm#wp1521573

Arie 

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Peter Basquiat
Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 23:05 PM
To: Peter Salanki
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 7600 Linecard decisision

Ok, good to know!

To place another more precisely question, how is matching/classifying
and marking based on layer4 to mark application traffic like voice
incoming from customer done in PFC-QoS? Is that possible? If yes, are
there any drawbacks with that or generally?
Iam thinking on the hardware architecture of the PFC, so that maybe not
every packet is correctly matched and only switched without
seen/modified/policed.

Maybe you guys had already experiences and hit some of the implications
of that architecture specially maybe on edge.

2007/5/5, Peter Salanki <peter.salanki at bahnhof.net>:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> PFC QoS can't do shaping at all. (That is actually not totally true, 
> SRR is available on the 8 ports at the sup32 and on the WS-X6708-10GE 
> afaik).
>
> 5 maj 2007 kl. 20.32 skrev Peter Basquiat:
>
> > Arie, thanks for your answer.
> >
> > When comparing this two different QoS models with each other, where 
> > are the main differences?
> > Are there real disadvantages compared to "normal" CBWFQ?
> > I believe that I will never use all possible classes in CBWFQ. It 
> > seems that PFC-QoS only supports up to 8 queues, this would be 
> > enough for our purposes.
> > Per (Ethernet Subinterface/Frame-Relay VC) Queueing/Shaping/ 
> > Policing should be possible, i dont think that the PFC isnt able to 
> > do that, right?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2007/5/5, Arie Vayner (avayner) <avayner at cisco.com >:
> >>
> >> Peter,
> >>
> >> The main difference is that all the "native" LAN modules on the 
> >> 7600 (meaning all the WS-X65/67 etc) can't actually support the
"normal"
> >> class-based QoS model, but use a different model.
> >> You can read about it here:
> >> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/cat6000/122sx/
> >> swcg/q
> >> os.htm
> >>
> >> This has to do with the way the packets are being handled inside 
> >> the device. For the native LAN modules, all QoS functionality is 
> >> done on the PFC, and it supports only the above QoS functionality.
> >>
> >> When using SIP modules (or older OSM/FlexWan modules), the QoS 
> >> functionality (as well as other things such as MPLS features) are 
> >> enhanced by the fact that the SIP has extended processing resources

> >> on the module and the software allows using this processing power 
> >> for features which are not available on the native LAN modules. 
> >> This explains the additional cost - the SIPs have much more 
> >> hardware on them (such as processor, memory etc)
> >>
> >> I think you can find some interesting reading on the SIPs here:
> >> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/core/
> >> cis7600/76sipspa/si
> >> pspasw/index.htm
> >>
> >> Arie
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> >> [mailto: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Peter 
> >> Basquiat
> >> Sent: Saturday, May 05, 2007 19:09 PM
> >> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] 7600 Linecard decisision
> >>
> >> It's not really clear in which direction our QoS stuff will expand.

> >> At the moment Iam thinking on typically class-based wfq on core and

> >> edge.
> >>
> >> What are the differences regarding QoS on the WS-X6582-2PA compared

> >> to SIP400/SPA?
> >>
> >> Other question: talking about features, what's with the WS-X67xx 
> >> modules, are there other/more features available or do they have 
> >> only more bandwidth?
> >>
> >> SIP400+SPA is much more expensive, without knowledge about the 
> >> SIP400+exact
> >> advantages it's really
> >> hard to judge.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Peter,
> >>>
> >>> Going for the SIP/SPA combination would allow you more features 
> >>> especially
> >> with regards to QoS and VPN PE-CE support.
> >>> Can you expand a bit about what kind of core/access QoS you
require?
> >>>
> >>> Arie
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
>
> Sincerely
>
> Peter Salanki
> CTO
> Bahnhof AB (AS8473)
> www.bahnhof.se
> Office: +46855577132
> Cell: +46709174932
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
>
> iD8DBQFGPNLZiQKhdiFGiogRAg5qAJwKIHqFuKc2hIfNf/GZ9ImcJxavAACeJ3y2
> 3zq7wQKj8kIwqNoW+O08w6M=
> =0DSO
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
_______________________________________________
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/