[c-nsp] 7600 Linecard decisision

[Peter Basquiat]

2007/5/5, Arie Vayner (avayner) <avayner at cisco.com>:
>
>  PFC can do policing (actually it has some different policing options over
> the regular policing in regular IOS), but it can't do shaping.
> Queuing is done on the egress linecard.
>

As i understood the 1pXqXt WRR/DWRR queueing is only possible with
COS-Mapping. Does this mean that's not possible in MPLS core
to prioritize? I assume that on MPLS swapping LSR only EXP values are
available and not DSCP or Prec.

Arie
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Peter Basquiat [mailto:peter.basquiat at googlemail.com]
> *Sent:* Saturday, May 05, 2007 21:33 PM
> *To:* Arie Vayner (avayner)
> *Cc:* cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> *Subject:* Re: [c-nsp] 7600 Linecard decisision
>
> 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 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/
> >
>
>