From: Nguyen Hoang Long (ng-hlong@hn.vnn.vn)
Date: Thu Aug 07 2003 - 15:26:03 GMT-3
Hi Binh,
First, the solution to use LLQ & CBWFQ only works when congestions occurs,
otherwise, we have to seek an alternative way.
Assumes that your requirement is used for congestion time, if i remember
right, IOS rules for your scenario is:
"priority percent" is percent of (interface BW)
"bandwidth percent" is percent of (interface BW- LLQ)
So your two solutions don't make any difference, with "percent" keyword, BW
is not affected by 75% percent rule.
Additionally, those should be used:
+ voice traffic must be put in priority queue with the "priority", not
"bandwidth"
+ since you used statement like : "match protocol ftp", NBAR & CEF must
be enabled.
Now, thing becomes more complicated with this rule:
"bandwidth percent" is percent of (interface BW- LLQ);
take your 1st configuration as example, your FTP traffic will only get
10% of (BW-voice traffic) = 10% of ( 60%BW) = 6% BW.
it should be "bandwidth percent 17" so FTP traffic will get 17% of
(BW-voice traffic) = 17% of ( 60%BW) = 10.2 % BW.
identically, you will have result like this:
class voice
priority percent 40
class net10
bandwidth percent 33
class ftp
bandwidth percent 17
Check again this link:
http://127.0.0.1:8080/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fqos_r/qrfcmd1.htm#xtocid2
http://127.0.0.1:8080/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fqos_r/qrfcmd6.htm#xtocid3
So, if you can specify bandwidth for interface, specifying exact bandwidth
in kbps + "max-reserve-bw 100" make it more simple.
Again, solution only work for congestions period.
Any comments ?
Good luck,
Long
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lam Binh" <lambinh@hcm.vnn.vn>
To: "'CCIE Lab GroupStudy'" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 6:03 PM
Subject: CBWFQ configurations
> Hello Groups,
>
> I would like to confirm whether my solution is correct or not.
>
> The requirement to configure CBWFQ as follows:
>
> - User in network 10.10.10.0/24 will get 20% BW
> - FTP traffic will get 10% BW
> - Voice traffic will get 40% BW
> - All of the remain traffic will use the remain of the BW
>
> I have two solution of configurations as:
>
> 1.
> class-map match-all Voice
> match access-group 102
> class-map match-all ftp
> match protocol ftp
> class-map match-all net10
> match access-group 101
>
> policy-map cbwfq
> class voice
> bandwidth percent 40
> class net10
> bandwidth percent 20
> class ftp
> bandwidth percent 10
> class class-default
> bandwidth percent 35
>
>
> access-list 101 permit ip 10.10.10.0 0.0.0.255 any
> access-list 102 permit udp any any range 16384 32767
> access-list 102 permit udp any range 16384 32767 any
>
> int se0/0
> service-policy output cbwfq
> max-reserved-bandwidth 100
>
> 2.
> class-map match-all Voice
> match access-group 102
> class-map match-all ftp
> match protocol ftp
> class-map match-all net10
> match access-group 101
>
> policy-map cbwfq
> class voice
> bandwidth percent 40
> class net10
> bandwidth percent 20
> class ftp
> bandwidth percent 10
>
> access-list 101 permit ip 10.10.10.0 0.0.0.255 any
> access-list 102 permit udp any any range 16384 32767
> access-list 102 permit udp any range 16384 32767 any
>
> int se0/0
> service-policy output cbwfq
> max-reserved-bandwidth 70
>
> Please advise both above methods are correct or not to meet the
> requirements?
> Which one is referable?
>
> thank you in advance!
>
> Lam Binh
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> You are subscribed to the GroupStudy.com CCIE R&S Discussion Group.
>
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Sep 02 2003 - 18:53:54 GMT-3