RE: CBWFQ on a Frame link...

From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Sun Sep 05 2004 - 00:43:11 GMT-3


If it involves queuing, then you cannot. If your main policy involves
something simply like shaping, then yes you can. And you can further apply
a service-policy within the policy to really take care of your queuing
needs.

You're not supposed to allow queuing on a sub-interface, and yet the
workaround is documented. Go figure.

But otherwise, you're correct to think through what you do or don't need.

Some semi-related information:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1829/products_feature_guid
e09186a00802261cc.html
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk543/tk545/technologies_tech_note09186a0080
114326.shtml

Emanon-R1#sh policy
  Policy Map total
    Class one
      Bandwidth 11 (%) Max Threshold 64 (packets)
    Class two
      Bandwidth 26 (%) Max Threshold 64 (packets)
    Class three
      Bandwidth 4 (%) Max Threshold 64 (packets)
    Class four
      Bandwidth 22 (%) Max Threshold 64 (packets)
    Class five
      Bandwidth 15 (%) Max Threshold 64 (packets)
    Class six
      Bandwidth 15 (%) Max Threshold 64 (packets)
    Class class-default
      Bandwidth 7 (%) Max Threshold 64 (packets)

  Policy Map shape
    Class class-default
      Traffic Shaping
         Average Rate Traffic Shaping
                 CIR 64000 (bps) Max. Buffers Limit 1000 (Packets)
      service-policy total

Emanon-R1#conf t
Emanon-R1(config)#int s0/0.1
Emanon-R1(config-subif)#service-policy output total <== Not taken here
 CBWFQ : Not supported on subinterfaces
Emanon-R1(config-subif)#exit
Emanon-R1(config)#pol
Emanon-R1(config)#policy-map shape
Emanon-R1(config-pmap)#class class-default
Emanon-R1(config-pmap-c)#shape average 64000
Emanon-R1(config-pmap-c)#serv
Emanon-R1(config-pmap-c)#service-policy total
Emanon-R1(config-pmap-c)#exit
Emanon-R1(config-pmap)#exit
Emanon-R1(config)#int s0/0.1
Emanon-R1(config-subif)#service-policy output shape <== Taken here
Emanon-R1(config-subif)#^Z
12w4d: %SYS-5-CONFIG_I: Configured from console by console

Notice that it's working now...

Emanon-R1#sh policy-map int s0/0.1

 Serial0/0.1

  Service-policy output: shape

    Class-map: class-default (match-any)
      170 packets, 166409 bytes
      5 minute offered rate 5000 bps, drop rate 0 bps
      Match: any
      Traffic Shaping
           Target/Average Byte Sustain Excess Interval Increment
             Rate Limit bits/int bits/int (ms) (bytes)
            64000/64000 2000 8000 8000 125 1000

        Adapt Queue Packets Bytes Packets Bytes Shaping
        Active Depth Delayed Delayed Active
        - 0 170 166409 8 5867 no

      Service-policy : total

        Class-map: one (match-all)
          0 packets, 0 bytes
          5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
          Match: ip precedence 1
          Queueing
            Output Queue: Conversation 25
            Bandwidth 11 (%) Max Threshold 64 (packets)
            (pkts matched/bytes matched) 0/0
        (depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/0/0

        Class-map: two (match-all)
          0 packets, 0 bytes
          5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
          Match: ip precedence 2
          Queueing
            Output Queue: Conversation 26
            Bandwidth 26 (%) Max Threshold 64 (packets)
            (pkts matched/bytes matched) 0/0
        (depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/0/0

        Class-map: three (match-all)
          0 packets, 0 bytes
          5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
          Match: ip precedence 3
          Queueing
            Output Queue: Conversation 27
            Bandwidth 4 (%) Max Threshold 64 (packets)
            (pkts matched/bytes matched) 0/0
        (depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/0/0

        Class-map: four (match-all)
          0 packets, 0 bytes
          5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
          Match: ip precedence 4
          Queueing
            Output Queue: Conversation 28
            Bandwidth 22 (%) Max Threshold 64 (packets)
            (pkts matched/bytes matched) 0/0
        (depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/0/0

        Class-map: five (match-all)
          0 packets, 0 bytes
          5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
          Match: ip precedence 5
          Queueing
            Output Queue: Conversation 29
            Bandwidth 15 (%) Max Threshold 64 (packets)
            (pkts matched/bytes matched) 0/0
        (depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/0/0

        Class-map: six (match-all)
          26 packets, 1565 bytes
          5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
          Match: ip precedence 6
          Queueing
            Output Queue: Conversation 30
            Bandwidth 15 (%) Max Threshold 64 (packets)
            (pkts matched/bytes matched) 1/48
        (depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/0/0

        Class-map: class-default (match-any)
          144 packets, 164844 bytes
          5 minute offered rate 5000 bps, drop rate 0 bps
          Match: any
          Queueing
            Output Queue: Conversation 31
            Bandwidth 7 (%) Max Threshold 64 (packets)
            (pkts matched/bytes matched) 4/1304
        (depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/0/0
Emanon-R1#

HTH,

 
Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, CISSP,
JNCIP, et al.
IPExpert CCIE Program Manager
IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
swm@emanon.com/smorris@ipexpert.net
http://www.ipexpert.net
 

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Sinclair
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 9:51 PM
To: Mike Calhoon; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: CBWFQ on a Frame link...

Mike,

I find that I cannot apply a service-policy to a frame-relay subinterface,
and when applied to the physical it does not match on traffic across the
subinterfaces. If you have a single DLCI on a physical interface, then
perhaps CBWFQ without a map-class will work for you, otherwise I would think
carefully about using a map-class.

Bob Sinclair
CCIE #10427, CISSP, MCSE
www.netmasterclass.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Calhoon" <mcalhoon27@earthlink.net>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 8:45 PM
Subject: CBWFQ on a Frame link...

> Hello group,
>
>
>
> Just a general question.here's the scenario: You get a QoS question,
not
> necessarily traffic-shaping, that is to be applied to an interface that
> happens to be a frame-relay interface. You configure the solution using
> CBWFQ. The question does not mention anything about frame-relay or
DLCI's,
> etc. Is it okay for you to just apply to policy-map directly to the
> interface, or should you always enable FRTS and put the policy-map inside
a
> frame-relay map-class? Any thoughts would be appreciated.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 15:00:36 GMT-3