[c-nsp] 7600 Linecard decisision

[Peter Basquiat]

Hi Peter :-)

are you really sure that the PFC3 has that? i can only find a EXPtoDSCP
mapping table.
The other thing with that is, that assumed that it maps the EXP to CoS can
it really queue on that
if the packet is only label-switched (swapped) or can it only queue if the
packet is dispositioned at
final LSR when the label is removed?


2007/5/6, Peter Salanki <peter.salanki at bahnhof.net>:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> You have an EXP to COS mapping table, so EXP will internally be
> converted to COS and you have QoS in MPLS core :D
>
> 5 maj 2007 kl. 23.16 skrev 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/
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
>
> Med vänliga hälsningar
>
> Peter Salanki
> Teknikchef
> Bahnhof AB (AS8473)
> www.bahnhof.se
> Kontor: +46855577132
> Mobil: +46709174932
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin)
>
> iD8DBQFGPRa8iQKhdiFGiogRAnTeAJ0WMoCMA1dfyS/p2Fp0YhKWY1H+3ACfRSN0
> 3fbBJJ7CV7OMLpPRICq30ZA=
> =rpo0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>