From: Muhamamd Durrani (dan_schaw@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Jul 17 2003 - 11:44:06 GMT-3
Why we can't go for this configuration.
Ip access-list extended VoIP
> Permit tcp any any eq 1720
> Permit udp any any range 16384 32767
> !
> class-map VoIP
> match access-group name VoIP
> !
> policy-map INNER_POLICY
> class class-default
> fair-queue
> !
> policy-map INNER_POLICY
> class VoIP
> priority 128
> !
> interface Ethernet 0
> service-policy output INNER_POLICY
rate-limit outout 1000000 1000 2000 confrom-action
tranmit exceed drop
--- Khalid Siddiq <khalid@sys.net.pk> wrote:
> Dear Brian,
> Can we use police command with policy map Hierarchy
> ?
> I am getting this error message when apply service
> policy to ethernet interface.
> I am using IOS version,
> System image file is "flash:c2500-js-l.122-6.bin"
>
> regards,
> khalid
>
> R4(config)#class-map k
> R4(config-cmap)#exit
> R4(config)#
> R4(config)#poli
> R4(config)#policy-map k
> R4(config-pmap)#class
> R4(config-pmap)#class k
> R4(config-pmap-c)#pri
> R4(config-pmap-c)#priority 64
> R4(config-pmap-c)#exit
> R4(config-pmap)#exit
> R4(config)#poli
> R4(config)#policy-map kk
> R4(config-pmap)#class class-default
> R4(config-pmap-c)#ser
> R4(config-pmap-c)#service-policy k
> R4(config-pmap-c)#poli
> R4(config-pmap-c)#police ?
> <8000-200000000> Bits per second
>
> R4(config-pmap-c)#police 100000
> R4(config-pmap-c)#int e 0
> R4(config-if)#ser
> R4(config-if)#service-policy ou
> R4(config-if)#service-policy output kk
> CBWFQ : Hierarchy supported only if shaping is
> configured in this class
>
> R4(config-if)#
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian McGahan [mailto:brian@cyscoexpert.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 11:06 PM
> To: 'Hossam'; 'Mustafa Bayramov (ICT/IT)'; 'Shane
> Marquis';
> ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: Voice QOS question
>
>
> The LLQ does not police all traffic in excess of
> the configured
> rate. Traffic in excess of the configured rate may
> be sent, but it is
> not guaranteed low latency. The policing function
> of the LLQ only kicks
> in when there is congestion on the line. Therefore,
> traffic in the LLQ
> *can* consume the entire bandwidth of a link, but
> only when there is no
> other traffic to be sent, and only traffic up to the
> configured rate is
> dequeued first.
>
> As for the answer to the sample exam question, it
> depends on
> what they are asking specifically. If they want you
> to police all
> traffic as an aggregate to 1Mbps but still provide
> voice with 128Kbps of
> priority, the outer policy should specify the
> policing while the inner
> policy should specify the voice.
>
> An example config would be as follows:
>
> Ip access-list extended VoIP
> Permit tcp any any eq 1720
> Permit udp any any range 16384 32767
> !
> class-map VoIP
> match access-group name VoIP
> !
> policy-map OUTER_POLICY
> class class-default
> police 1000000 187500 375000 conform transmit
> exceed drop
> service-policy INNER_POLICY
> !
> policy-map INNER_POLICY
> class VoIP
> priority 128
> !
> interface Ethernet 0
> service-policy output OUTER_POLICY
>
>
> HTH
>
> Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
> Director of Design and Implementation
> brian@cyscoexpert.com
>
> CyscoExpert Corporation
> Internetwork Consulting & Training
> Toll Free: 866-CyscoXP
> Outside US: 847.674.3392
> Fax: 847.674.2625
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > Hossam
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 11:43 AM
> > To: Mustafa Bayramov (ICT/IT); Shane Marquis;
> 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> > Subject: RE: Voice QOS question
> >
> > Mustafa,
> > I see it the other way arround. As there is no
> point (my point of
> view) to
> > do policying to 1M after priorty to 128 (remember
> Priority unlike
> Bandidth
> > does policying by default).
> >
> > I am thinking of :
> >
> > class-map match-all voice
> > match ip rtp 16384 16383
> > policy-map policing
> > class class-default
> > police 1000000 187500 375000 conform-action
> transmit exceed-action
> drop
> > service-policy main
> >
> > policy-map main
> > class voice
> > priority 128
> >
> >
> > "Mustafa Bayramov (ICT/IT)" <mustafa@azercell.com>
> wrote:
> > class-map match-all voice
> > match ip rtp 16384 16383
> >
> > policy-map policing
> > class class-default
> > police 1000000 187500 375000 conform-action
> transmit exceed-action
> drop
> >
> > policy-map main
> > class voice
> > priority 128
> > service-policy policing
> >
> >
> > What about this ?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > Shane Marquis
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 1:42 AM
> > To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
> > Subject: Voice QOS question
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I hope this is not a stupid question, but as I've
> always been told -
> there
> > are no stupid questions only stupid people so here
> goes :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > I have a question on a sample exam that asks me to
> give a priority
> queue
> > of
> > 128kb/s to voice but then goes on to ask for me to
> limit the outgoing
> > traffic to 1mb/s - the outgoing interface is
> Ethernet.
> >
> > I have configured a service policy giving 128kb/s
> but I am unsure how
> to
> > then limit the traffic to 1mb/s I've been unable
> to find a solution on
> > CCO.
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 06:52:43 GMT-3