SignaMax 065-7434, Руководство по настройке

Страница: 454 / 669

86 SIGNAMAX LLC • www.signamax.eu
there may be the conflict of remarking actions. For example, port 0/1
belongs to VLAN1, and the ACL on port 0/1 allows the packets with
source IP address 1.1.1.1 to pass, and is configured with the action of
remarking the value of DSCP field as 5. But the ACL on the VLAN1
allows the packets with IP address 1.1.1.1 to pass and remarks the
value of DSCP field as 4. In this situation, process it as per the priority
order of port
＞
VLAN
＞
global and MAC ACL
＞
IP ACL. The final remarking
value is 5.
If the ACL configured on the object is configured with action group,
there may be non-conflict of remarking action. For example, port 0/1
belongs to VLAN1; the ACL on port 0/1 allows the packets with source
IP address 1.1.1.1 to pass and is configured with the action of
modifying the value of DSCP field as 5. But the ACL on VLAN1 allows
the packets with IP address 1.1.1.1 to pass and modifies the field
value of Ethernet packet priority as 4. For the non-conflict remarking
action, the packet remarks the DSCP as 5 and the field value of
Ethernet packet priority as 4.
If the ACL configured on the object is configured with action group and
the meter for restricting flow on the action group (when it is used for
restricting the flow, it processes the red and yellow packets as
discarding), there may be conflict flow restriction action.. For example,
port 0/1 belongs to VLAN1; the ACL on port 0/1 allows the packets
with source IP address 1.1.1.1 to pass and is configured with the of
restricting its flow as 5Mbps. The ACL on VLAN1 allows the packets
with IP address as 1.1.1.1 to pass and is configured with action of
restricting the flow as 1Mbps. In this situation, the minimum speed in
the packet channel takes effect and the speed is restricted as 1Mpbs.
Because of the hardware limitation, the actual flow of multi-level speed
restrictions is smaller than the minimum restricted speed in the packet
channel. Therefore, when the speed needs to be accurate, the user is
not recommended to use the multi-level speed restriction.
Notes:
In the above example, if the processing for the red and yellow packets
in the meter is not configured as drop, but configured as transmit, the
flow restriction cannot take effect. The colored packets can be
remarked in the configuration parameters of transmit. The processing
of the remarking conflict is the same as the processing for the non-
colored packets. It is possible that the meter configurations bound to
different priority objects are not the same. For example, port 0/1
belongs to VLAN1; the meter is configured on port 0/1; remark the red
and yellow packets with Ethernet priority as 2 and 3 respectively. The
meter is also configured on VLAN1 and remark red and yellow packets
with discarding priority as 4 and 5. When the port receives one packet,
it colors the packet according to the current measuring result and
takes the action of remarking or non-remarking the packet with
Ethernet priority. But the meter configured on VLAN1 colors the packet
according to the current measuring result and takes the action of
remarking or non-remarking the packet with discarding priority. The
two actions do not conflict with each other, so at last the packet is