I?m traying to explain to my coworker that there is no need for an extra rate-limit command, since there?s already a service-policy on the interface, but since it is posible to add both commands to the same interface, I can?t find arguments to sustain my point. Does anybody know if there is a cisco recomendation abaut this issue?

Hi,

I am not really sure about the recommendation but I can slite some differences between both rate-limiting & Policing as follows:

With Rate-limiting , when Multiple rate limit states are configured , the conform and exceed actions can also be continued to the next statment therfore a complex of rate policy could be configured.

With Plicing, you have the option to configure Police CIR , when this issued , it can be configured in Bps or percentage of the Interface Bandwidth.

Additional Option for Policing within the conform & exceed action , u can Set the Frame-relay De bit or Set ATM cell-loss priority values However , there is No continue action. also u have The Option Of Violation which defines traffic Rate above the Commited & Ecess burst rates.

For Cisco Recommendation, maybe some one On the forum can provide us with more details.

Regards,

Mohamed Sobair

Don't know if there any Cisco recommendation one way or the other. Would think the newer technique would be preferred. One issue that might arise if both commands use, would the CBWFQ before or after other policier?