From: Dmitry Volkov (dmitry.volkov@rogers.com)
Date: Fri Jun 11 2004 - 18:19:57 GMT-3
Brian,
I don't understand the relation between child and parent policy in this case
So You are saying that child policy for LLQ has priority over parent policy
?
What if parent policy does policing below LLQ rate ?
If there is any description of order of processing between child and parent
?
I didn't find it very clear :
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1835/products_conf
iguration_guide_chapter09186a00800bd909.html#1022062
"In the following example, the child policy is responsible for prioritizing
traffic and the parent policy is responsible for shaping traffic. In this
configuration, the parent policy allows packets to be sent from the
interface, and the child policy determines the order in which the packets
are sent."
Thanks,
Dmitry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian McGahan [mailto:bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 4:45 PM
> To: Dmitry Volkov
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: CBWFQ in the real life
>
>
> Dmitry,
>
> It will be subject to shaping, but will be first to move from
> the shaping queue to the transmit ring. Since it is guaranteed a
> maximum of 500Kbps though, it will not be dropped from the
> shaping queue
> (or even delayed) unless it exceeds that rate.
>
> HTH,
>
> Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
> bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
>
> Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
> Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> Of
> > Dmitry Volkov
> > Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 8:53 AM
> > To: Brian McGahan
> > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: CBWFQ in the real life
> >
> > Won't be in this case voice traffic subject of shaping during
> congestion
> > and
> > perhaps delayed ?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dmitry
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On
> > > Behalf Of Brian McGahan
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 10:46 AM
> > > To: Patrick Torney; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > Subject: RE: CBWFQ in the real life
> > >
> > >
> > > I meant bandwidth. The class should read:
> > >
> > > policy-map RESERVE
> > > class A
> > > priority 500
> > > class B
> > > bandwidth 500
> > > class C
> > > bandwidth 1000
> > >
> > > Still early ;)
> > >
> > > Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
> > > bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
> > >
> > > Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> > > http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> > > Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
> > > Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Patrick Torney [mailto:ptorney@satx.rr.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 9:41 AM
> > > > To: Brian McGahan
> > > > Subject: Re: CBWFQ in the real life
> > > >
> > > > Hi Brian:
> > > >
> > > > Why did you use 'priority xxx' under class B and C and not
> > > 'bandwidth
> > > > xxx'?
> > > > Doesn't the way you did this result in all classes sharing the
> LLQ?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > > Pat Torney
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Brian McGahan" <bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com>
> > > > To: <roih@012.net.il>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 9:17 AM
> > > > Subject: RE: CBWFQ in the real life
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Roi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Configure the voice traffic in the low latency queue (priority
> > > > > statement under the class), and do a bandwidth reservation for
> > > classes B
> > > > > and C. Put this class inside another nested policy that
> > > shapes out
> > > to
> > > > > 2Mbps.
> > > > >
> > > > > Example:
> > > > >
> > > > > policy-map RESERVE
> > > > > class A
> > > > > priority 500
> > > > > class B
> > > > > priority 500
> > > > > class C
> > > > > priority 1000
> > > > >
> > > > > policy-map SHAPE
> > > > > class class-default
> > > > > shape average 2000000
> > > > > service-policy RESERVE
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The above configuration gives 500Kbps of low latency
> to class A,
> > > > > and guarantees at least 500Kbps and 1000Kbps for class B
> > > and class C
> > > > > respectively in the case of congestion. The congestion
> > > condition is
> > > > > bound by the outer service policy, which is shaping the
> > > aggregate of
> > > all
> > > > > classes in RESERVE to 2Mbps. In the case of the absence
> > > of traffic
> > > for
> > > > > a particular class, one or more of the other classes
> may use the
> > > > > bandwidth allocated to the missing class.
> > > > >
> > > > > HTH,
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian McGahan, CCIE #8593
> > > > > bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Internetwork Expert, Inc.
> > > > > http://www.InternetworkExpert.com
> > > > > Toll Free: 877-224-8987 x 705
> > > > > Outside US: 775-826-4344 x 705
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com
> [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On
> > > Behalf
> > > > > Of
> > > > > > roih@012.net.il
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 5:28 AM
> > > > > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > > > Subject: CBWFQ in the real life
> > > > > >
> > > > > > hi group.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I need help in CBWFQ case in the real world.
> > > > > > here it goes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3 classes A,B,C the first is voice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have fast Ethernet interface and I need the limit it to 2M
> > > > > (that's
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > customer wants to pay).
> > > > > > in 2M I have the police the traffic the A and B will get
> > > > > > 0.5M each and C the other 1M.
> > > > > > Now for the problem: I want to be able the allocate
> the BW of
> > > class A
> > > > > if
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > packets of voice are arriving and use it
> > > > > > in class B, the same case from B to C.
> > > > > > So, my config file have to give me the option to use
> > > the entire BW
> > > > > even if
> > > > > > A
> > > > > > and B are empty. I've tried it in few ways (also
> > > with the new
> > > > > feature
> > > > > > "two-
> > > > > > rate
> > > > > > policer" but no success.
> > > > > > The BW remaining commands cant help here because it
> > > define the way
> > > the
> > > > > > Allocate the left BW after the classes used the BW. My
> challenge
> > > is to
> > > > > > "leak"
> > > > > > BW from class to class and not from the remaining "bank" to
> the
> > > > > classes
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Experts, Any idea??
> > > > > >
> > > > > > p.s the version can be 12.3...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Roi
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > _________
> > > > > > Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study
> > > materials
> > > > > from:
> > > > > > http://shop.groupstudy.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > _________
> > > > > Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study
> materials
> > > from:
> > > > > http://shop.groupstudy.com
> > > > >
> > > > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________
> > > _________
> > > Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study
> > > materials from:
> > > http://shop.groupstudy.com
> > >
> > > Subscription information may be found at:
> > > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
> >
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> _________
> > Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials
> from:
> > http://shop.groupstudy.com
> >
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
[GroupStudy removed an attachment of type application/ms-tnef which had a name of winmail.dat]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 03 2004 - 19:40:38 GMT-3