Joe,
I think that your initial settings call for the policer to kick in
really fast, after all, you are policing @3MB and sending @100MB!
The idea of the policer is that if 3MBps are ok, then 1500 byte packets
should arrive @ 3000000/1500 = 2000 pps, or every .0005s.
Then, if even spaced, t - t1 * policed rate yields 1500 and all is good.
If your source is CBR, all that makes the burst size important is jitter
(IPDV in Pavel referred document). Video is a whole different story, as
it is not CBR, but VBR. (Constant Bit Rate, Variable Bit Rate).
VBR codecs tend to have different design behaviours. An altogether
different problem.
-Carlos
Joe Astorino @ 16/09/2011 13:49 -0300 dixit:
> PS I know these numbers are WAY off, but at least I think it makes the 
> concept of how the burst works make more sense, at least for me.  I 
> think in the real world, there are many many other factors like the 
> video codec being used, number of bytes in the payload of each packet, 
> number of packets per second, etc.
> 
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Joe Astorino 
> <joeastorino1982_at_gmail.com <mailto:joeastorino1982_at_gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     OK, I have worked this out, at least in my own head to make sense. 
>     I thought I would share with you guys.  A lot of this is based on
>     assumptions, but at least it makes sense to me:
> 
>     Here is how I see things playing out with an 8000 byte burst size
> 
>     Assumptions:
>     Interface is connected at 100Mbps
>     Policed rate is 3Mbps
>     Burst Size is set to 8000 Bytes
>     Ethernet frame size is a maximum 1500 bytes
> 
>     By this logic, if the host is connected and sending at 100Mbps, and
>     he is sending 100,000,000 bits per second or 12,500,000 bytes per
>     second.  If each frame is 1500 bytes, it is sending 12,500,000 /
>     1500 or about 8333 frames per second.  That means every 1/8333
>     seconds or .00012 seconds a 1500 byte frame arrives at the switch
>     port and is evaluated against by policer. 
> 
>     When the policer sees the frame, it first adds tokens to the bucket
>     based on the formula (t1 - t) * policed rate where t1 is the packet
>     arrival time and t is the last packet arrival time.  This is in
>     bytes so... every .00012 seconds a frame arrives and the policer
>     puts 45 bytes into the bucket (3,000,000/8 * .00012).  Obviously,
>     this is a very low number and I think explains why the 8000 byte
>     limit couldn't handle the bitrate
> 
>     After not too many intervals of 1500 byte frames coming in at .00012
>     seconds, the BC bucket would be empty.  Now...lets run the math with
>     the BC size I have chosen, 37,500 bytes.  All the other assumptions
>     are the same here.  BC_Size is the size of BC at the beginning of
>     the interval
> 
>     Time: 0
>     BC_Size: 37,500
> 
>     send the 1500 byte frame, leaving BC at 36,000 bytes
> 
>     Time: .00012 seconds
>     BC_Size: 36,000 bytes
> 
>     add 45 bytes to the bucket, send the 1500 byte frame leaving BC at
>     34,545 bytes
> 
>     Time: .00024 seconds
>     BC_Size: 34,545 bytes
> 
>     add 45 bytes to the bucket, send the 1500 byte frame leaving BC at
>     33,090 bytes
> 
>     Time: .00036 seconds
>     BC_Size: 33,090 bytes
> 
>     add 45 bytes to the bucket, send the 1500 byte frame leaving BC at
>     31,635
> 
>     ...
> 
>     Now, with that math the rate can be sustained for about 28 intervals
>     until the bucket is emptied and packets would start being dropped. 
>     So...that still doesn't really work because 28 intervals only takes
>     us until .003 seconds until the bucket would be flattened.  But then
>     again, my assumptions could be way off.  Everything is based on the
>     idea that the unit is sending at the negotiated speed of 100Mbps and
>     that is is constantly sending a stream of fixed length 1500 byte
>     packets.  That could be WAY off, but at least now having really
>     thought through it, I think I have a better understanding.
> 
>     If anybody here knowledgeable on the subject happens to read this
>     and think I'm off my rocker, please enlighten me I'd love to
>     understand deeper.
> 
>     - Joe
> 
>     -- 
>     Regards,
> 
>     Joe Astorino
>     CCIE #24347
>     Blog: http://astorinonetworks.com
> 
>     "He not busy being born is busy dying" - Dylan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Joe Astorino
> CCIE #24347
> Blog: http://astorinonetworks.com
> 
> "He not busy being born is busy dying" - Dylan
> 
-- Carlos G Mendioroz <tron_at_huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI Argentina Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.netReceived on Fri Sep 16 2011 - 14:37:14 ART
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Oct 01 2011 - 07:26:25 ART