From: G. R. Correia (razzolini80@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu May 15 2003 - 14:06:52 GMT-3
from CCO:
In Cisco IOS Software Releases 12.1T and 12.2, the
max-reserved-bandwidth and the bandwidth percent commands are not
related. The bandwidth percent command is a relative percentage of
available bandwidth. The following example helps explain this:
Interface bandwidth = 1000 kbps max reserved bandwidth = 75% default
* The priority (PQ) can be configured with a value of up to 75% or 750
kbps.
* The bandwidth percent command uses a ratio derived from 1000 kbps -
PQ bandwidth specified in priority statements.
* The max-reserved-bandwidth command does not affect the bandwidth
percentage, and the specified values in bandwidth percent commands
can sum to higher than 75%.
In addition, in these releases, the bandwidth percent command is used as
follows:
* bandwidth percent is an absolute percentage.
* bandwidth percent remaining allows you to dictate what percentage of
unused bandwidth can be used by a class, rather than leaving it up to
calculated weightings, and so on.
so this would be correct:
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
http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/121/max_reserved.html
anyone agree? :)
Guilherme
>From: "Jung, Jin" >To: "'Daniel Cisco Group Study'" , Roger McNeace ,
"G. R. Correia" , ccielab@groupstudy.com >Subject: RE: Converting Custom
Queue to CBWFQ >Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 08:50:24 -0400 > >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 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
>**********************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 15:13:43 GMT-3