GroupStudy.com GroupStudy.com - A virtual community of network engineers
 Home  BookStore  StudyNotes  Links  Archives  StudyRooms  HelpWanted  Discounts  Login
Re: CAR posted 03/30/2007
[Chronological Index] [Thread Index] [Top] [Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Hi Maureen,
Thanks for reply.

I was meant if I do:

Interface fas0/0
rate-limit input 64000 11520 23040 conform-action transmit exceed-action
drop
rate-limit output 64000 11520 23040 conform-action transmit exceed-action
drop

and

Interface fas0/0
switchport mode access
switchport
switchport access vlan10

Interface vlan10
ip add 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
rate-limit input 64000 11520 23040 conform-action transmit exceed-action
drop
rate-limit output 64000 11520 23040 conform-action transmit exceed-action
drop

Do you see there any issue ? Applying CAR on SVI or on physical interface ?

Frog..............


On 3/30/07, maureen schaar <maureen.schaar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I don't know what your specific requirements are, but here's my thought.
> With an SVI, how would you determine the direction of traffic? IMO,
> you would have to specify an inbound and outbound rate-limit in this
> case to 'catch' all VLAN traffic.
> Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Otherwise use some for of vlan-based policing to be able to specify an
> aggregate rate regardless of the direction. I think this is what 'mls
> qos vlan-based' was made for ;-)
>
>
> Maureen
>
>
> On 3/30/07, Radioactive Frog <pbhatkoti@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi GS,
> >
> >
> > Are there any knows issues to apply CAR on physical interface vs. SVI
> > interface ?
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Frog
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html