Mailing List Archive

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

You can use port priority. in the Co-location ports.

regards.
Pablo.

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Ben (Y.M.Feng) [mailto:ben@optisp.com]
Enviado el: Miércoles, 09 de Octubre de 2002 07:02 a.m.
Para: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
Asunto: [nsp] C2948 BVI rate-limit issue


Hi All,

We are using a Cisco Catalyst 2948 switch-router to provide both
Broadband Access (Ethernet access) and co-location services. For the
Boradband one, 4 ethernet interface are grouped into a BVI, and the
co-location are using another interface. For the reason of that the
Broadband Access clients are using too much bandwidth and cause the
co-location servers almost can't be visited.

Is there a way on how to build a rate-limit config to limite the
Broadband user's bandwidth ? ( I have try to config a rate-limit under
the physical interface, but seems it don't work. :(

Or is there another way to decrease the piority of the broadband traffic
(and let the co-location go first).

The 2948 is working with this IOS: cat2948g-in-mz.120-18.W5.22b.bin

TIA for any kindly help.

Ben Feng
optisp.com

_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list real_name)s@puck.nether.net
http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
Este mensaje es confidencial. El mismo contiene información reservada
y que no puede ser difundida. Si usted ha recibido este e-mail
por error, por favor avísenos inmediatamente vía e-mail y tenga la
amabilidad de eliminarlo de su sistema; no deberá copiar el mensaje
ni divulgar su contenido a ninguna persona. Muchas gracias.

This message is confidential. It contains information that is privileged and
legally exempt from disclosure. If you have received this e-mail by mistake,

please let us know immediately by e-mail and delete it from your system;
you should also not copy the message nor disclose its contents to anyone.
Thank You.

We never had much luck getting rate-limiting to work with the 2948. For our
colocates, we ended up using ISL from a 7206 to a 2924XL switch, and doing
the rate-limiting on the subinterfaces on the 7206. Works great. We use
the 2948G-L3 for measured-bandwidth (unlimited) colocates, and for our own
internal servers.

--
Bruce Robertson, President/CEO +1-775-348-7299
Great Basin Internet Services, Inc. fax: +1-775-348-9412
http://www.greatbasin.net

Hi Bruce,

We knew that the rate-limiting on subinterface on the 7206 work.
But unfortunately, we are using a 2948G-L3 for the service right now.
Does the 2948G-L3's rate-limite function can't work at all ?

Thanks.

Ben Feng
Optisp.com

Bruce Robertson wrote:

>We never had much luck getting rate-limiting to work with the 2948. For our
>colocates, we ended up using ISL from a 7206 to a 2924XL switch, and doing
>the rate-limiting on the subinterfaces on the 7206. Works great. We use
>the 2948G-L3 for measured-bandwidth (unlimited) colocates, and for our own
>internal servers.
>
>--
>Bruce Robertson, President/CEO +1-775-348-7299
>Great Basin Internet Services, Inc. fax: +1-775-348-9412
>http://www.greatbasin.net
>
>
>
>
>
>

> We knew that the rate-limiting on subinterface on the 7206 work.
> But unfortunately, we are using a 2948G-L3 for the service right now.
> Does the 2948G-L3's rate-limite function can't work at all ?

We have gotten 2948G-L3 rate limiting to work, with some important
caveats:

1. We couldn't get anything sensible with only one source and one
destination (classic ttcp setup). As soon as we tried several sources
and destinations, things started working better.

2. We only tried rate limiting on physical ports. In general our
experience with the 2948G-L3 is that it works okay as an (L3) router,
and rather poorly as an L2 switch/bridge. Thus rate limiting only on
physical ports, no BVIs.

Nowadays we're trying to move away from the 2948G-L3s - 3550s are
much easier to handle.

Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no