I totally agree with you, in theory this should work. The IOS on R2 is c7200p-adventerprisek9-mz.124-15.T11.bin This night I had a flash : may be the odd behaviour is normal with an ATM interface as the service-policy is applied to the PVC and not to the sub-interface itself, what do you think ? thanks in advance
... View more
Hi all, I need some help to solve a problem when using egress netflow (v9) and output marking. The topologie : Server <-----> R1 1>-----<1 R2 2>----<2 R3 R2 is a 7200 with c7200p-adventerprisek9-mz.124-15.T11.bin What I'm doing : - R2 forwards ping packets from Server to R3. When they arrive on R2, icmp packets are marked with CS3 - I change the DSCP to CS4 on R2 before forwarding packet to R3. I'm using for that an output service-policy on the R2-2 interface like this : interface ATM2/0.36 point-to-point
ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.252 ip flow ingress ip flow egress no ip mroute-cache snmp trap link-status pvc 1/36 vbr-nrt 2040 2040 1 tx-ring-limit 3 oam-pvc manage oam retry 3 5 1 service-policy output TDSL2C - I export Netflow v9 data to a management device What I'm getting: - On R2, when I enter: sh ip cache verb flow I get this: AT2/0.36 10.1.1.202 Gi0/3.427 10.255.255.208 01 60 10 10 R2-1 10.255.255.208 AT2/0.326* 10.1.1.202 01 60 10 10 10.255.255.208 is the Server 10.1.1.202 is R3 - As you can see, the line concerning the egress packet (with *) indicates a TOS of 60 in hex => DSCP CS3 - However, on R3 I have: AT0/0.1 10.255.255.208 Local 10.1..202 01 80 10 10 which is correct (AT0/0.1 is R3-2) My question: - Why the egress netflow on R2 indicates a TOS of 60 instead of 80 as I would expect ? In theory, egress netflow comes after QoS marking, so if I understand, normally on R2 I should have something like : AT2/0.36 10.1.1.202 R2-1 10.255.255.208 01 60 10 10
R2-1 10.255.255.208 AT2/0.326* 10.1.1.202 01 80 10 10 but in practice I don't, I'm confused !
... View more