[c-nsp] ME3600X Output Drops

[Ivan]

Hi Warris,

Thanks again for your answers.  The requirement to match at vlan level is
because I understood from your examples to apply a policy at the EVC level
this was required "<<<<< Using vlan level confirms it is the
second level and the child policy is the third level"

I have found that a policy such as the following seems to work and handle
both tagged and untagged traffic and can be applied to a EVC.  (I wish to
apply the same policy to all EVCs regardless of whether the traffic is
tagged or not unless customisation is required)

class-map match-any vlan
 match vlan  1-4094

policy-map EVC-LEAF
 class class-default
  queue-limit 491520 bytes

policy-map EVC-VLAN
 class vlan
   service-policy EVC-LEAF
 class class-default
   service-policy EVC-LEAF

################

Separate to this, and partly why I was confused, is that I have found the
polices applied to the EVC seem to work when bridging but not for a
xconnect.  Can you confirm this is expected behavior?  I would prefer to
avoid having to bridge and xconnect on the vlan interface.

interface GigabitEthernet0/5
 switchport trunk allowed vlan none
 switchport mode trunk
 service instance 60 ethernet
  encapsulation dot1q 60
  service-policy output EVC-VLAN
  bridge-domain 60   <--------------- bridged
 service instance 70 ethernet
  encapsulation dot1q 70
  service-policy output EVC-VLAN
  xconnect 1.2.3.4 70 encapsulation mpls <--------------- xconnect

Switch#show policy-map interface gi0/5 service instance 60
  GigabitEthernet0/5: EFP 60

  Service-policy output: EVC-VLAN

    Class-map: vlan (match-any)
      0 packets, 0 bytes
      5 minute offered rate 0000 bps
      Match: vlan  1-4094

      Service-policy : EVC-LEAF

        Class-map: class-default (match-any)
          0 packets, 0 bytes
          5 minute offered rate 0000 bps, drop rate 0000 bps
          Match: any
          Queue-limit 491520 bytes
          Queue-limit current-queue-depth 0 bytes
              Output Queue:
                Tail Packets Drop: 0
                Tail Bytes Drop: 0

    Class-map: class-default (match-any)
      0 packets, 0 bytes
      5 minute offered rate 0000 bps, drop rate 0000 bps
      Match: any

      Service-policy : EVC-LEAF

        Class-map: class-default (match-any)
          0 packets, 0 bytes
          5 minute offered rate 0000 bps, drop rate 0000 bps
          Match: any
          Queue-limit 491520 bytes <----------------------------queue-limit
          Queue-limit current-queue-depth 0 bytes
              Output Queue:
                Tail Packets Drop: 0
                Tail Bytes Drop: 0

Switch#show policy-map interface gi0/5 service instance 70
  GigabitEthernet0/5: EFP 70

  Service-policy output: EVC-VLAN

    Class-map: vlan (match-any)
      0 packets, 0 bytes
      5 minute offered rate 0000 bps
      Match: vlan  1-4094

      Service-policy : EVC-LEAF

        Class-map: class-default (match-any)
          0 packets, 0 bytes
          5 minute offered rate 0000 bps, drop rate 0000 bps
          Match: any

    Class-map: class-default (match-any)
      0 packets, 0 bytes
      5 minute offered rate 0000 bps, drop rate 0000 bps
      Match: any

      Service-policy : EVC-LEAF

        Class-map: class-default (match-any)
          0 packets, 0 bytes
          5 minute offered rate 0000 bps, drop rate 0000 bps
          Match: any


> Hi Ivan,
> There is no difference in terms of queue depth in case of policy at the
> port level vs policy at the EVC from hardware programming perspective.
> Port level policy would consume less queues as compare to queues per EVC.
> Policy at EVC has separate queues per service instance. However policy at
> the port level, queues are shared by the all the service instances under
> that port.
> Selection of the policy depends on the requirement. If there are separate
> customers on the EVC then per EVC policy should be used.
> For you last question, shouldn't untagged means no tag then why is there a
> requirement to match on the VLAN level? What kind of traffic is there in
> case of "default"? Is it tagged or untagged?
> If tagged, is there a range?
>
> Regards,
> Waris
>
>