[c-nsp] ES20+ L3 subinterface or service instance ?

[Saku Ytti]

On (2013-04-23 16:37 -0700), Tony wrote:

Hi,

> Thanks for the tip, can you put me out of my misery and say which one shapes at L1 and which at L2 ?

I think:
  SIP400: L2
  ES+:    L2
  ES20:   L1

ES+ fix:
hw-module slot 2 account np 0 out 24
hw-module slot 2 account np 1 out 24
SIP-400 fix:
shape average blaablaa account user-defined 24

> Is there any real difference between the two policies ? If I look at the output from "show policy-map" they appear to be much the same in what they are doing (bandwidths are different because one is 2M & one is 5M parent shaper):

I'm not 100% sure if police rate percent % is supported, of if you need to
use police cir <calculated rate>.
But this is indeed only way to replicate your SIP400 config.

> I am yet to try and see if the policy with the additional specific "police" command will work on the SPA, but is there any reason why it shouldn't ? We'd prefer to having a single set of child policies that will work on both cards, rather than maintaining another set just for the ES cards.

I think you should be able to live at least on egress direction with same
child policy for SIP400 + ES+

It's very important to use percent values in ES+, especially in
'bandwidth'. As you have 32 profiles per NPU and each unique value is a
profile, so you could have 32 different 'bandwidth X' values.  32 seems
sufficient, when you distribute it to different percent values, but to
distribute it to different absolute values, you're gonna have a bad time.

You can see the profile usage via 'command module X show platform hardware
qos np Y profile resources', lot of other interesting stuff there.

-- 
  ++ytti