Go CCIE Go!! - A Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert

Oook,
On your second point - was checking with Wendell Odom’s DQOS book as i remembered that CB Policing is exactly like CAR in regard to the Be value - both are the sum of Bc and the actual Be…
Any idea how can this be check guys?

On 9/17/06, Petr Lapukhov wrote: > > Yep, you are correct here. > > There are two main differences between MQC policer and CAR. > > 1) Exceed action is “pseudo-random” with CAR (compound/actual debt > algorithm) to simulate RED behavior. With MQC there is three-color > single-rate > marker algorithm. There is no “violate” action with CAR and “exceed” > action > is “deterministic”. > > 2) “Be” value with CAR is used to calculate “margin = Be-Bc”, which is > used > for debt computation. With MQC, it is the actual Excess bucket value. > [You didn’t account that fact in your configuration] > > Therefore, strictly speaking, there is no strightforward way to convert > CAR configuration into MQC. A most close approximation would be: > > rate-limit input 256000 4000 8000 conform-action transmit > > exceed-action set-prec-transmit 0 > > ==> > > > police cir 256000 bc 4000 be 4000 > conform-action transmit > exceed-action transmit > violate-action set-prec-transmit 0 > > HTH > > 2006/9/17, Radoslav Vasilev : > > > > Hi Group, > > While re-testing some QoS sections, I came accross this lab task, which > solution I consider partially wrong. > This will revive an old discussion about exactly this task (CAR to MQC > configuration transition). > > I won’t copy the whole CAR configuration, as I have problems with the > following part of it only: > > existing rate-limit: > […] > rate-limit input access-group 102 256000 4000 8000 conform-action transmit > > exceed-action set-prec-transmit 0 > access-list 102 permit tcp any any > > This has to become a CB Policing congiguration with the IEWB solution > being: > policy-map MQC-CAR > […] > class TCP > police cir 256000 bc 4000 be 8000 > conform-action transmit > exceed-action set-prec-transmit 0 > > I consider the solution incorrect as: > CAR and CB Policing have multiple differences, one of which is that CAR > has > two actions (conform, exceed) and CBP has thee (conform, exceed, violate). > > This is true when Be>0, which is the case in this task. > > Now, what CAR achieves with the configuration above is that traffic will > still conform even when additional tokens should be borrowed from > Bucket2(Be > bucket). In case when Be is used, the packets Precende won’t be override. > > With the proposed IEWB MQC solution, the packet’s IP Precedence will be > override when Be extra tokes have to be used (bursts of traffic when Be > can > cover). Therefore the suggested solution in my opinion is not entirely > correct. > > My solution: > > class TCP > police cir 256000 bc 4000 be 8000 > conform-action transmit > exceed-action transmit > violate-action set-prec-transmit 0 > > > Could you guys comment the solutions? > > Rado > > _______________________________________________________________________ > Subscription information may be found at: > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html > > > > — > Petr Lapukhov, CCIE #16379 > petr@internetworkexpert.com > > Internetwork Expert, Inc. > http://www.InternetworkExpert.com > Toll Free: 877-224-8987 > Outside US: 775-826-4344