From: Carlos G Mendioroz (tron@huapi.ba.ar)
Date: Sun Sep 05 2004 - 09:06:15 GMT-3
Scott,
I don't follow your first paragraph...
It seems to imply that shapping is simpler than queueing ? Or that you
can shape w/o queueing ?
FRTS allows to have independent queuing on different PVCs.
I'm not very confident on the following but this is how I think it goes:
Queueing is a layer 2 issue, subinterfaces is a layer 3 issue.
So it does not matter if subinterraces are used or not. It matters if
you do per-PVC policy (FRTS) or not.
BTW, good luck on voice!
Scott Morris wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
-- Carlos G Mendioroz <tron@huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI Argentina
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 15:00:37 GMT-3