From: Jung, Jin (jin.jung@lmco.com)
Date: Thu May 15 2003 - 09:50:24 GMT-3
Well, the problem is that,
If I put 70 which is 100% bandwidth, instead of 56, for www in this case.
Router also does not complain.
And I have seen, I can plug in any value as bandwidth and router will still
work, at least it things it does.
--- I tried this about a month ago, so correct me if I am wrong.
I really need to get this...
SO far, this is true
-- default is at 75%, so you have to multiply by .75 at the end, unless you
do max-bandwidth-per 100 on the interface.
-- the formula is ar*(packet/total packet)*.75 - for the bandwidth
-- the formula is (packet/total packet)*.75 *100 for the bandwidth-percent.
???? Is this right???
I am sure about default-que,,,
Let's say the question was
Www 3000
Dns 5000
Ftp 3000
And did not defined the default-que
Do I still add 1500 to the total packet. Since default-que is 1500 packets
by default?
Jin jung...
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Cisco Group Study [mailto:danielcgs@imc.net.au]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 5:59 PM
To: Roger McNeace; G. R. Correia; jin.jung@lmco.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Converting Custom Queue to CBWFQ
I tried this out (Bandwidth percent adding up to 100, but max-reserved BW
set to default 75%). The router did not complain. I guess that the bandwidth
begin allocated for each class is say 55% of (0.75 * Bandwidth of
interface).
So, can we come to an agreement on this? This whole topic has been discussed
many times, but not fully resolved. Any comments from the elite on the
following config - Does the following satisfy the requirements?
class-map www
match access-group 130
class-map dns
match access-group 131
policy-map TEST
class www
bandwidth percent 55
queue-limit 100
class dns
bandwidth percent 18
queue-limit 100
class class-default
bandwidth percent 27
queue-limit 20
interface S0
Bandwidth 128
service-policy output TEST
access-list 130 permit tcp any any eq www
access-list 130 permit tcp any eq www any
access-list 131 permit tcp any any eq domain
access-list 131 permit tcp any eq domain any
R5#sh policy-map int e0
Ethernet0 output : TEST
Weighted Fair Queueing
Class www
Output Queue: Conversation 265
Bandwidth 55 (%) Packets Matched 0 Max Threshold 100 (packets)
(depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/0/0
Class dns
Output Queue: Conversation 266
Bandwidth 18 (%) Packets Matched 0 Max Threshold 100 (packets)
(depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/0/0
Class class-default
Output Queue: Conversation 267
Bandwidth 27 (%) Packets Matched 15 Max Threshold 20 (packets)
(depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/0/0
-----Original Message-----
From: Roger McNeace [mailto:rmcneace@terremark.com]
Sent: Thursday, 15 May 2003 5:45 AM
To: 'G. R. Correia'; jin.jung@lmco.com; Roger McNeace;
ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Converting Custom Queue to CBWFQ
Even you use "bandwidth percent" your total percentages of bandwidth should
equal 75%, unless you change the max-reserved command. For the LAB I would
assume the default of 75% unless stated otherwise.
-----Original Message-----
From: G. R. Correia [mailto:razzolini80@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 3:12 PM
To: jin.jung@lmco.com; rmcneace@terremark.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Converting Custom Queue to CBWFQ
from Cisco:
" The bandwidth allocated for a priority queue always includes the Layer 2
encapsulation header. However, it does not include other headers, such as
ATM cell tax overheads. When you calculate the amount of bandwidth to
allocate for a given priority class, you must account for the fact that
Layer 2 headers are included. When ATM is used, you must account for the
fact that ATM cell tax overhead is not included. You must also allow
bandwidth for the possibility of jitter introduced by routers in the voice
path.
The sum of all bandwidth allocation on an interface cannot exceed 75 percent
of the total available interface bandwidth. However, under aggressive
circumstances in which you want to configure more than 75 percent of the
interface bandwidth to classes, you can override the 75 percent maximum sum
allocated to all classes or flows using the max-reserved-bandwidth command,
"
But not probably to 100%, due to the overheads previously commented.
I personally think it is easier to use the "bandwith percent" than the
"bandwidth" command; but if you use the "bandwidth" (not bandwidth percent)
you have to multiply by 0.75. The "bandwidht percent" has one count
less....
Cheers
>From: "Jung, Jin"
>To: "'G. R. Correia'" , rmcneace@terremark.com, ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: Converting Custom Queue to CBWFQ
>Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:28:25 -0400
>
>I think you have to do *.75,,,
>
>-- let me ask this way,,
>so if you do "max-reserved-bandwidth 100"
>What do you do?
>
>I thinks you have to do *.75 unless you set the max bandwidth to 100.
>
>jin jung...
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: G. R. Correia [mailto:razzolini80@hotmail.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 12:56 PM
>To: rmcneace@terremark.com; jin.jung@lmco.com; ccielab@groupstudy.com
>Subject: RE: Converting Custom Queue to CBWFQ
>
>
>
>IMHO, regarding the bandwith percent command; the 75% is given by the
>command:
>
>wp1001667Router(config-if)# max-reserved-bandwidth
>percentBM_1001665BM_1001666
>
>this command changes the maximum configurable bandwidth for CBWFQ, LLQ,
>and
>IP RTP Priority
>that by default is 75%; there is no need to multiply by .75.
>so in the example below it should look like:
>
>www - 3000/5500: 55%
>dns - 1500/5500: 27%
>default - 1000/5000: 18%
>
>hth
>
>
>Guilherme
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Roger McNeace
> >Reply-To: Roger McNeace
> >To: "'Jung, Jin'" , "'ccielab@groupstudy.com'"
> >Subject: RE: Converting Custom Queue to CBWFQ
> >Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 11:20:11 -0400
> >
> >No not yet, but I figured out a formula for bandwidth and bandwidth
> >percentage
> >
> >byte-count/Total-byte-count * Bandwidth * .75
> >
> >example: Bandwidth 128k
> >
> >www byte count 1500 in custom queue list
> >
> >1500/4500= .333 * 128 = 42.624 * .75 =31.968 (32k of bandwidth)
> >
> >Bandwidth percentage
> >
> >byte-count/Total-byte-count * .75
> >
> >1500/4500= 33 * .75 = 24.75% (25% of bandwidth)
> >
> >Let me know if this makes sense or if you feel this is the correct
>approach.
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jung, Jin [mailto:jin.jung@lmco.com]
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 10:03 AM
> >To: 'Roger McNeace'; 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> >Subject: RE: Converting Custom Queue to CBWFQ
> >
> >
> >Did someone answer this for you yet?
> >If not, here is what I have..
> >I am trying to do this with our router. It should be close.
> >Please compare with answers you got and let me know if this is correct. >
>I am also trying to learn this....
> >
> >
> >Class map www
> >Match match-all protocol www
> >Class map dns
> >Match match-all protocol dns
> >
> >Policy map ccie1
> >Class www
> >Bandwidth 52
> >Que-limit 100
> >Class dns
> >Bandwidth 17
> >Que-limit 100
> >Class class-default
> >Bandwidth 26
> >
> >
> >Interface ser 0/0
> >Service policy ccie1 out
> >
> >
> >Assuming ar = 128
> >75% of total traffic.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Roger McNeace [mailto:rmcneace@terremark.com]
> >Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 2:52 PM
> >To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> >Subject: Converting Custom Queue to CBWFQ
> >
> >
> >Given the Custom Queue below, could someone show me an example on how
> >to > >convert this to a CBWFQ list.
> >
> >queue-list 1 protocol ip 1 tcp www
> >queue-list 1 protocol ip 2 tcp dns
> >queue-list 1 default 3
> >queue-list 1 queue 1 limit 100
> >queue-list 1 queue 1 byte-count 3000
> >queue-list 1 queue 2 limit 100
> >queue-list 1 queue 2 byte-count 1000
> >queue-list 1 queue 3 byte-count 1500
>
> _____
>
>Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and
>get 2 months FREE*
>
_____
Protect your PC - Click here <http://g.msn.com/8HMUENCA/2755??PS=> for
McAfee.com VirusScan Online
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 15:13:43 GMT-3