w end Netscreens
you can try also
that have traffic shaping features.
> Subject: RE: Rate Limiting on Cisco Router
> From: gordsla...@ieee.org
> To: brandon@brandontek.com
> CC: nanog@nanog.org
> Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 06:33:04 +0100
>
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:0
> Definitely worth the try. Your biggest enemy may be 12.4 IOS. It's
> bloated and buggy in my experience, but that has mostly been edge
> services. If 12.4 pegs your processor, you may want to check the
> software/hardware matrix and see if one of the older 12.0/2 service
> provider trains that th
Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
With a G1 you'll be able to shape just fine, even do fancy stuff like
fair-queue within those 80 megs. I've done this on a NPE-300, but only
egress, and as long as packet sizes were fairly large (normal TCP
sessions with mostly 1500 byte packets + ACKs) it coped with
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 20:01 -0400, Brandon Kim wrote:
> What about purchasing a low-end packetshaper to be used in between?
If -
1/ budget is a problem
and
2/ you have no BSD knowledge inhouse
and
3/ the LAN side is all ethernet
you could have a stab at using a PFsense box with two (and str
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Alan Bryant wrote:
So you guys would not recommend the traffic shaping route on a 7206
with a NPE-G1? Is it the processor or memory that would not be able to
handle it?
With a G1 you'll be able to shape just fine, even do fancy stuff like
fair-queue within those 80 megs. I
On Jul 8, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Alan Bryant wrote:
> Thanks again for all the responses to my previous post.
>
> We have a Cisco 7206VXR router with IOS of 12.4(12) and a PA-POS-1OC3
> card ofr our OC3.
>
> The problem we have now is that we are only paying for 80 MB/s of the
> OC-3, and the ISP is
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 01:43:17PM -1000, Antonio Querubin wrote:
> Traffic-shaping 80Mb/s of traffic is probably not a good idea for your
> router cpu :)
I concur, we shape a 100Mb/s ethernet down to 50Mb/s on a 3845,
so that QoS is doable. The router gets brought to its knees
around 40Mb/s. T
On 7/8/2010 18:40, Alan Bryant wrote:
> Also, are there any upgrades that can be done to this router to
> increase it's processing power? Is there something better for the
> 7206VXR than the NPE-G1? I see the NPE-G2, but even on ebay it is very
> costly.
>
The NPE-G2 is the next step after the N
Also, are there any upgrades that can be done to this router to
increase it's processing power? Is there something better for the
7206VXR than the NPE-G1? I see the NPE-G2, but even on ebay it is very
costly.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 8:32 PM, Alan Bryant wrote:
> So you guys would not recommend the
So you guys would not recommend the traffic shaping route on a 7206
with a NPE-G1? Is it the processor or memory that would not be able to
handle it?
I don't necessarily plan on doing anything other than limiting it at
80Mbps or whatever it is that we are capping ourselves at at the time.
On Thu,
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 18:54 -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
> underpowered router or poor code
Agreed. So which is it? :)
To be fair, some IOS versions were better than others at it in my
limited experience of that chassis.
Gord
--
I hold you XAP
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 16:35 -0700, Kenny Sallee wrote:
> I think if you try to traffic-shape 80Mbps on that platform you'll have
> problems. We have a 7200 with NPE-G1 (rate limited at 80Mbps) and it killed
> the CPU when the threshold was hit. I imagine that traffic-shaping would do
> the same t
What about purchasing a low-end packetshaper to be used in between?
I know this doesn't answer the question but could it be an option?
> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 13:43:17 -1000
> From: t...@lava.net
> To: jay.mur...@state.nm.us
> Subject: RE: Rate Limiting on Cisco Router
>
Antonio Querubin wrote:
Traffic-shaping 80Mb/s of traffic is probably not a good idea for your
router cpu :)
Honestly, cpu overhead shouldn't be an issue with a traffic shape queue.
If it is, probably a seriously underpowered router or poor code. Now if
you applied extensive rules for var
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Murphy, Jay, DOH wrote:
Traffic shaping produces a queue, and does not completely junk a packet.
It becomes q'd, and produces a smoother output.
Traffic-shaping 80Mb/s of traffic is probably not a good idea for your
router cpu :)
Antonio Querubin
808-545-5282 x3003
e-mai
Agree...when you rate limit verse shaping you can actually cause more
traffic because the packets need to be retransmitted to deal with those
that got dropped.
On 07/08/2010 06:43 PM, Murphy, Jay, DOH wrote:
traffic-shape rate 7500 9000 9000 1000 for example. Your rate limit
will
il
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Antonio Querubin [mailto:t...@lava.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 4:26 PM
> To: Alan Bryant
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Re: Rate Limiting on Cisco Router
>
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Alan Bryant wrote:
>
> > The pr
og@nanog.org
Subject: Re: Rate Limiting on Cisco Router
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Alan Bryant wrote:
> The problem we have now is that we are only paying for 80 MB/s of the
> OC-3, and the ISP is leaving the capping of it up to us. I have
BTW, rate-limiting of traffic that the ISP router sends to
That's strange, Are you paying for a CIR of 80Mb/s?
Normally they only leave the limiting up to you if its more of a
burstable connection, Like you pay for 80Mb/s but its a full line rate
interface and its billed per Mb/s over 80 on a 95th percentile scheme.
If that is the case you can safely go o
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Alan Bryant wrote:
The problem we have now is that we are only paying for 80 MB/s of the
OC-3, and the ISP is leaving the capping of it up to us. I have
BTW, rate-limiting of traffic that the ISP router sends to your router is
best done at the ISP router.
Antonio Querubi
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010, Alan Bryant wrote:
We have tried the rate-limit command with various parameters and we
are unable to keep it at 80. I have read that this is not the correct
way to do it, but I'm not sure what is.
What burst parameters are you using?
Try something along the lines of:
rat
21 matches
Mail list logo
