Problem with measuring Catalyst4006 interface capacity

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by Joe Shen, Dec 25, 2003.

  1. Joe Shen

    Joe Shen Guest

    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
     
    Joe Shen, Dec 25, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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.
     
    Andrey Tarasov, Dec 25, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. * Andrey Tarasov <>:
    > 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
     
    Daniel Roesen, Jan 1, 2004
    #3
  4. Joe Shen

    AnyBody43 Guest

    "Joe Shen" <> wrote in message news:<bsdg97$c15o7$-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.
     
    AnyBody43, Jan 1, 2004
    #4
  5. 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.
     
    Andrey Tarasov, Jan 1, 2004
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Joe Shen

    CPU Load on Catalyst4006

    Joe Shen, Apr 9, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,741
    Pavlov
    Apr 12, 2004
  2. baboman

    Measuring Smtp traffic

    baboman, Sep 16, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    641
    Ivan Ostres
    Sep 16, 2004
  3. Trent C

    Measuring traffic

    Trent C, Dec 6, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    542
    ┬░Mike┬░
    Dec 7, 2003
  4. DD
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    653
    Jerry G.
    Oct 23, 2004
  5. ftran999
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,931
    Barry OGrady
    Nov 23, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page