<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Catalyst QoS: The 3550 Explained</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/</link>
	<description>Helping you become a Cisco Certified Internetwork Expert</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:29:25 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Raheel</title>
		<link>http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-8621</link>
		<dc:creator>Raheel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 03:33:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-8621</guid>
		<description>Hi Petr,

When no CoS value is present in incoming packet and we want to change the default CoS value assigned to a port(1 in this case) then in this case why mls qos trust cos command is required prior to the mls qos cos 1 command what are we trusting in this case?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Petr,</p>
<p>When no CoS value is present in incoming packet and we want to change the default CoS value assigned to a port(1 in this case) then in this case why mls qos trust cos command is required prior to the mls qos cos 1 command what are we trusting in this case?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Petr Lapukhov, CCIE #16379</title>
		<link>http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-8577</link>
		<dc:creator>Petr Lapukhov, CCIE #16379</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:26:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-8577</guid>
		<description>To: &lt;i&gt;Lloyd Ardoin&lt;/i&gt;:

You can not match two ACLS inside the class-map "ALL_TRAFFIC". You can only match one criterion, e.g. a list of DSCP values of a single ACL.

To: &lt;i&gt;Jimmy&lt;/i&gt;

There must be a type in my post. WTD (Weighted Tail Drop) is only supported on the Gigabit Ports of the 3550. Regular ports are limited to tail drop.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To: <i>Lloyd Ardoin</i>:</p>
<p>You can not match two ACLS inside the class-map &#8220;ALL_TRAFFIC&#8221;. You can only match one criterion, e.g. a list of DSCP values of a single ACL.</p>
<p>To: <i>Jimmy</i></p>
<p>There must be a type in my post. WTD (Weighted Tail Drop) is only supported on the Gigabit Ports of the 3550. Regular ports are limited to tail drop.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jimmy</title>
		<link>http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-8551</link>
		<dc:creator>Jimmy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:51:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-8551</guid>
		<description>Petr,

You show that wrr-queue threshold command is available for fast ethernet ports but my 3550 with the latest EMI image does not have this otion available.  According to the Cisco documentation this command only applies to 3550 Gigabit Ethernet interfaces.  So is it safe to assume that 3550 cannot do threshold dropping as described on FE interfaces? Please Advise.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Petr,</p>
<p>You show that wrr-queue threshold command is available for fast ethernet ports but my 3550 with the latest EMI image does not have this otion available.  According to the Cisco documentation this command only applies to 3550 Gigabit Ethernet interfaces.  So is it safe to assume that 3550 cannot do threshold dropping as described on FE interfaces? Please Advise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lloyd Ardoin</title>
		<link>http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-7453</link>
		<dc:creator>Lloyd Ardoin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:13:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-7453</guid>
		<description>Hi Petr,

attempting to complete a task on my 3550 doing PPPV to set IPP 3 on ALL traffic coming from VLAN 55. I seem to have hit a bug and crashed my switch. I attempted to define ALL traffic by using two ACLs -

mac access-list extended NON_IP_TRAFFIC
 permit any any 0xFFFF 0x0

ip access-list extended IP_TRAFFIC
 permit ip any any

class-map match-any ALL_TRAFFIC
 match access-group name NON_IP_TRAFFIC
 match access-group IP_TRAFFIC

class-map match-all VLAN55_TRAFFIC
match vlan 55
match class-map ALL_TRAFFIC

policy-map VLAN55
 class VLAN55_TRAFFIC
 set prec 3

interface fa0/3
 service-policy input VLAN55

as soon as I pressed the enter key the switch output a message that it did not support the ACL and started a crash dump. 

So my question is - what is the correct way to accomplish this?

thanks in advance.
LA</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Petr,</p>
<p>attempting to complete a task on my 3550 doing PPPV to set IPP 3 on ALL traffic coming from VLAN 55. I seem to have hit a bug and crashed my switch. I attempted to define ALL traffic by using two ACLs -</p>
<p>mac access-list extended NON_IP_TRAFFIC<br />
 permit any any 0xFFFF 0&#215;0</p>
<p>ip access-list extended IP_TRAFFIC<br />
 permit ip any any</p>
<p>class-map match-any ALL_TRAFFIC<br />
 match access-group name NON_IP_TRAFFIC<br />
 match access-group IP_TRAFFIC</p>
<p>class-map match-all VLAN55_TRAFFIC<br />
match vlan 55<br />
match class-map ALL_TRAFFIC</p>
<p>policy-map VLAN55<br />
 class VLAN55_TRAFFIC<br />
 set prec 3</p>
<p>interface fa0/3<br />
 service-policy input VLAN55</p>
<p>as soon as I pressed the enter key the switch output a message that it did not support the ACL and started a crash dump. </p>
<p>So my question is - what is the correct way to accomplish this?</p>
<p>thanks in advance.<br />
LA</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tom</title>
		<link>http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-4540</link>
		<dc:creator>tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:37:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-4540</guid>
		<description>sorry for typo

Hi Petr

i’m still confused between

mls qos min-reserve and wrr-queue bandwidth 

what is the difference between the two

thx</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sorry for typo</p>
<p>Hi Petr</p>
<p>i’m still confused between</p>
<p>mls qos min-reserve and wrr-queue bandwidth </p>
<p>what is the difference between the two</p>
<p>thx</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tom</title>
		<link>http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-4539</link>
		<dc:creator>tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:36:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-4539</guid>
		<description>Hi Petr

i'm still confused between

mls qos min-reserve  and mls qos min-reserve

what is the difference between the two

thx</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Petr</p>
<p>i&#8217;m still confused between</p>
<p>mls qos min-reserve  and mls qos min-reserve</p>
<p>what is the difference between the two</p>
<p>thx</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Petr Lapukhov, CCIE #16379</title>
		<link>http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-3576</link>
		<dc:creator>Petr Lapukhov, CCIE #16379</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:36:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-3576</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;To Sergey&lt;/i&gt;

non-IP packets get that internal DSCP value by the virtue of CoS-to-DSCP mapping table. Mon-IP packet CoS is either taken from the packet header (if they have it) or interface default value (if CoS is trusted and frame header has no 802.11p bits).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>To Sergey</i></p>
<p>non-IP packets get that internal DSCP value by the virtue of CoS-to-DSCP mapping table. Mon-IP packet CoS is either taken from the packet header (if they have it) or interface default value (if CoS is trusted and frame header has no 802.11p bits).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sergey</title>
		<link>http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-2510</link>
		<dc:creator>Sergey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2008 17:10:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-2510</guid>
		<description>Hello Petr,

You wrote: 
... For non-IP packets, new CoS value is calculated for packets from the internal DSCP using a configurable DSCP to CoS table (which is global to a switch)...
I don't understand this completely. How the new CoS value can be calculated using DSCP to CoS table for just arrived non-IP packet? According to your explanation, at Stage 1 (Ingress) switch should perform for non-IP frames only CoS set/trust marking, and then CoS to internal DSCP marking.
Please explain it.

Thanks and best regards!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Petr,</p>
<p>You wrote:<br />
&#8230; For non-IP packets, new CoS value is calculated for packets from the internal DSCP using a configurable DSCP to CoS table (which is global to a switch)&#8230;<br />
I don&#8217;t understand this completely. How the new CoS value can be calculated using DSCP to CoS table for just arrived non-IP packet? According to your explanation, at Stage 1 (Ingress) switch should perform for non-IP frames only CoS set/trust marking, and then CoS to internal DSCP marking.<br />
Please explain it.</p>
<p>Thanks and best regards!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Goodstuff about Catayst QoS &#171; Kevin Dorrell&#8217;s CCIE Study Weblog</title>
		<link>http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-660</link>
		<dc:creator>Goodstuff about Catayst QoS &#171; Kevin Dorrell&#8217;s CCIE Study Weblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 14:25:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-660</guid>
		<description>[...] Catalyst QoS: The 3550 Explained [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Catalyst QoS: The 3550 Explained [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Petr Lapukhov, CCIE #16379</title>
		<link>http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-556</link>
		<dc:creator>Petr Lapukhov, CCIE #16379</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2008 09:51:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.internetworkexpert.com/2008/02/23/catalyst-qos-3550-explained/#comment-556</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;To Dwayne&lt;/i&gt;

Correct, since IP packets will be marked based on the default CoS value assigned to the port.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>To Dwayne</i></p>
<p>Correct, since IP packets will be marked based on the default CoS value assigned to the port.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
