Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > Problem with measuring Catalyst4006 interface capacity

Reply
Thread Tools

Problem with measuring Catalyst4006 interface capacity

 
 
Joe Shen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2003
Hi,

Sorry for pasting this again as I find it not spread by some other servers.

I'm trying to measure Cisco Catalyst 4006 port-to-port forwarding capacity.

I use Sunrise Telecom's MTT with 28 module to finish such work.

_________________________________________
Sunrise MTT 1---| Port1 of 4006 port2 or 4006|--- Sunrise MTT2
-----------------------------------------
Catalyst 4006 with super engineIII

After configuring IP address and MAC address on each MTT, I setup MTT1 as
"loopback response" and MTT2 as controller.
I want to scan bandwidth between the two MTTs. So, I start with layer2
loopback bandwidth scanning, it's shown that
MTT could only meaure about 16Mbps; after set up Layer3 loopback, it's shown
MTT find out a 100Mbps capacity.

I set up the two 10/100Mbps ethernet interface to work as switchport.

But when I turned to Catalyst 2924, it's measured that the switch could
provision 100Mbps on Lay1-3.


Why? is there any differnece on layer2 processing between Catalyst 4006 and
catalyst 2924?

thanks in advance.

Joe Shen


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Andrey Tarasov
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-25-2003
Hello, Joe!
You wrote on Thu, 25 Dec 2003 09:59:13 +0800:

JS> I use Sunrise Telecom's MTT with 28 module to finish such
JS> work.

JS> _________________________________________
JS> Sunrise MTT 1---| Port1 of 4006 port2 or 4006|---
JS> Sunrise MTT2
JS> -----------------------------------------
JS> Catalyst 4006 with super engineIII

JS> After configuring IP address and MAC address on each MTT, I
JS> setup MTT1 as "loopback response" and MTT2 as controller.
JS> I want to scan bandwidth between the two MTTs. So, I start
JS> with layer2 loopback bandwidth scanning, it's shown that
JS> MTT could only meaure about 16Mbps; after set up Layer3
JS> loopback, it's shown MTT find out a 100Mbps capacity.

What type of packets are you using for Layer2 test? Sup III and Sup IV supports
protocols other than IP in software only.

With best regards,
Andrey.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Daniel Roesen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2004
* Andrey Tarasov <(E-Mail Removed)>:
> What type of packets are you using for Layer2 test? Sup III and Sup
> IV supports protocols other than IP in software only.


We're talking switching, so L3 protocol should not matter at all. All
the switch should be interested in is the L2 MAC destination address to
decide where to forward the frame to.

I have some suspicion that I misunderstood you?!


Best regards,
Daniel
 
Reply With Quote
 
AnyBody43
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2004
"Joe Shen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<bsdg97$c15o7$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de>...
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for pasting this again as I find it not spread by some other servers.
>
> I'm trying to measure Cisco Catalyst 4006 port-to-port forwarding capacity.
>
> I use Sunrise Telecom's MTT with 28 module to finish such work.
>
> _________________________________________
> Sunrise MTT 1---| Port1 of 4006 port2 or 4006|--- Sunrise MTT2
> -----------------------------------------
> Catalyst 4006 with super engineIII
>
> After configuring IP address and MAC address on each MTT, I setup MTT1 as
> "loopback response" and MTT2 as controller.
> I want to scan bandwidth between the two MTTs. So, I start with layer2
> loopback bandwidth scanning, it's shown that
> MTT could only meaure about 16Mbps; after set up Layer3 loopback, it's shown
> MTT find out a 100Mbps capacity.
>
> I set up the two 10/100Mbps ethernet interface to work as switchport.
>
> But when I turned to Catalyst 2924, it's measured that the switch could
> provision 100Mbps on Lay1-3.
>
>
> Why? is there any differnece on layer2 processing between Catalyst 4006 and
> catalyst 2924?


Joe,

I would think that the two switch fabrics are completely different.

What size packets are you using?
Some network equipment is not able to do wire rate
with small packets. In real life this is OK since real traffic does
not use minimal length packets. Well this was the case but
now of course we have VoIP, however 16Mbps would be quiet a few
voice calls.

Are you using one address at each end? Some testers (smartbits)
can simulate a number of computers and some network equipment
is more efficient about dealing with this than others.
I have no experience of SE III on the Cat 4000 but the original
cat 4000 SE (SE I?) was not very good at address learning.
Learning rate range was I believe 30 - 100 per second.
Once again this is unlikely to cause a real life network problem but
testers could light the problem up with a BRIGHT spotlight.


You could ask Sunrise, they seem to have a free support number.

Please post the solution.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andrey Tarasov
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-01-2004
Hello, Daniel!
You wrote on Thu, 1 Jan 2004 14:14:43 +0000 (UTC):

DR> We're talking switching, so L3 protocol should not matter at
DR> all. All the switch should be interested in is the L2 MAC
DR> destination address to decide where to forward the frame to.

Yes and no. For example SupIII and IV do QoS processing for all packets even if
QoS is not enabled - empty rules are used in this case. So my guess that these
Sup's is expecting some valid payload even for L2 switching. Are you getting any
error messages when you are doing you L2 tests?

With best regards,
Andrey.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
DVD stated capacity vs Ulead Movie factory stated capacity ftran999 Computer Support 5 11-23-2004 08:43 AM
Measuring Memory Useage Guadala Harry ASP .Net 2 10-25-2004 09:47 PM
Measuring Smtp traffic baboman Cisco 1 09-16-2004 02:19 PM
CPU Load on Catalyst4006 Joe Shen Cisco 3 04-12-2004 04:47 PM
Measuring performance of Net::FTP Carlo Filippini Perl 1 09-09-2003 05:41 PM



Advertisments