From: Bob Sinclair (bsin@cox.net)
Date: Sun Dec 05 2004 - 00:25:14 GMT-3
Tim,
As of 12.2(2)T bandwidth percent statements in the MQC refer to the full,
software-configured bandwidth, not the available bandwidth. The example
below reserves 20% of the bandwidth of a 10 Mbs link for HTTP.
R1#sh policy-map
Policy Map HTTP
Class http
Bandwidth 20 (%) Max Threshold 64 (packets)
R1#sh int e1/0 | inc BW
MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10000 Kbit, DLY 1000 usec,
R1#
R1#sh policy-map interface
Ethernet1/0
Service-policy output: HTTP
Class-map: http (match-all)
0 packets, 0 bytes
5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
Match: protocol http
Queueing
Output Queue: Conversation 265
Bandwidth 20 (%)
Bandwidth 2000 (kbps) Max Threshold 64 (packets)
(pkts matched/bytes matched) 0/0
(depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/0/0
Class-map: class-default (match-any)
106 packets, 8614 bytes
5 minute offered rate 2000 bps, drop rate 0 bps
Match: any
R1#
Here is the link to the documentation:
Bob Sinclair
CCIE #10427, CCSI 30427, CISSP
www.netmasterclass.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
To: "Devi Mallampalli" <Devi.Mallampalli@chubb.com.au>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: Interoperability of CQ with CBWFQ
> Hi,
>
> One difference I can think of is this:
>
> With MQC, the percent specified for a class of traffic is relative to the
> available bandwidth, not the actual interface bandwidth. By default, I
> believe 25% of the bandwidth is reserved, but that can be changed.
>
> Thus, with MQC, in your example, when you configured ftp for 30%, that's
> 30%
> of 75% of 64k, not 30 % of 64k.
>
> HTH, Tim
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Devi Mallampalli" <Devi.Mallampalli@chubb.com.au>
> To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2004 7:34 AM
> Subject: Interoperability of CQ with CBWFQ
>
>
>> Hi Group,
>>
>> I was wondering is it possible to make a CQ (with let us say 4 queues ,
>> queue 1 = FTP , queue 2 = Telnet , queue 3 = dlsw , queue 16 = default)
>> interoperable with a CBWFQ so that CBWFQ can call any of CQ config
>> parameters in any way ?
>>
>> From my understanding , CQ is a legacy way of deploying or manipulating
>> the " service threshold" a traffic type from default behavior of 20
>> packets in the queue depth and 1500 bytes of pick up run by the
>> scheduler on her each pass. And this mechanism I believe is successfully
>> taken over by CBWFQ algorithm which is more flexible (64 queues as
>> oppose 16)and can offer better results. And CBWFQ can do almost all of
>> things CQ does in terms of identifying the traffic types (class-maps)
>> and deciding what to do with each traffic type (policy map) and then
>> applying to an interface with a service policy.
>>
>> So in other words , to me they both are similar algorithms , one a
>> legacy one and 2nd one is more sophisticated with better control. There
>> by I think you can not join CQ with CBWFQ in any manner ???
>>
>> Let me explain you with an example:
>>
>> B/W on wire = 64k
>> Ftp to have = 30%
>> Telnet to have = 20%
>> Dlsw to have = 10 %
>> Default to have = rest of B/W.
>>
>> So with the above info , I can calculate the required byte-count of each
>> queue with the below formula.
>>
>> Ftp = 30% of bandwidth to be given = 64 000 / 8 = 8000 bytes * 30/100 =
>> 2400 byte-count , which will go in as "queue-list 1 queue 1 byte-count
>> 2400 limit 100"
>> telnet = 20% of bandwidth to be given = 64 000 / 8 = 8000 bytes *20/100
>> = 1600 byte-count , which will go in as queue-list 1 queue 2
>> byte-count 1600 limit 100
>> Dlsw = 10%% of bandwidth to be given = 64 000 / 8 = 8000 bytes *
>> 10/100= 800 byte-count , which will go in as "queue-list 1 queue 3
>> byte-count 800 limit 100"
>> Default = 40% of bandwidth to be given = 64 000 / 8 = 8000 bytes *
>> 40/100 = 3200 byte-count , which will go in as queue-list 1 queue 16
>> byte-count 3200 limit 100
>>
>>
>> And then these queues will then be applied on an interface with a
>> custom-queue command.
>>
>>
>> But now my Q is , since we can do the same thing with CBWFQ too with the
>> following config, am not sure how we can make these 2 algorithms
>> interoperate (if at all there is a provision/necessity) the above config
>> of CQ to the below mentioned config of CBWFQ ?
>>
>> Ip cef
>>
>> Class-map ftp
>> Match protocol ftp
>> Class-map telnet
>> Match protocol telnet
>> Class-map dlsw
>> Match protocol dlsw
>>
>> Policy-map cbwfq
>> Class ftp
>> Bandwidth percent 30
>> Queue-limit 100
>> Class telnet
>> Bandwidth percent 20
>> Queue-limit 100
>> Class dlsw
>> Bandwidth percent 10
>> Queue-limit 100
>> Class class-default
>> Bandwidth percent 40
>>
>> Interface s0/0
>> Service-policy output cbwfq
>>
>>
>> I appreciate any feed back on this subject.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Devi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *************************************************************
>> This email and any files attached are considered
>> confidential and intended solely for the use of the
>> individual or entity to whom this email is addressed.
>> If you have received this email in error, please send a
>> reply message to this email address.
>> This footnote also confirms that the above email has been
>> scanned for the presence of computer viruses.
>> *************************************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 03 2005 - 10:31:24 GMT-3