From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Tue Dec 28 2004 - 12:04:42 GMT-3
All right.. That's it. No more eggnog. It makes me think like an IOS
programmer, and that SCARES me!!!!
;)
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Sinclair
Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2004 9:21 AM
To: swm@emanon.com; 'David Duncon'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Class class-default
Scott,
I think we all could use some of your eggnog! As you suggest, when I raise
the class-default reservation above the 25% default, it does show up in the
output of "show policy-map interface" and does reduce the interface
Available bandwidth.
Bob Sinclair
CCIE #10427, CCSI 30427, CISSP
www.netmasterclass.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
To: "'Bob Sinclair'" <bsin@cox.net>; "'David Duncon'"
<david_ccie@hotmail.com>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 11:46 PM
Subject: RE: Class class-default
> I'm not entirely sure I'd agree with that logic. When you use the
> bandwidth
> command in your policy for any class, you are reducing the amount of
> available bandwidth. That available bandwidth is used for:
>
> 1 - Any remaining classes in a policy
> 2 - Class-default
>
> If you then go to reserve a finite amount for class class-default, you are
> really disregarding why this equation is used, but not necessarily
> hindering
> it. If you chose a bandwidth amount for the class class-default that was
> greater than 25% of the interface's bandwidth (e.g. more than the
> non-"available" stuff), then you should see a decrease.
>
> Otherwise the router is likely thinking "hey, if you want to reserve
> something I've already set aside, knock yourself out"....
>
> Now, bear in mind, I don't pretend to understand the thinking of IOS
> programmers! But that would seem to be the likely scenario in my warped
> opinion. Perhaps I've had too much eggnog though!
>
> Happy Holidays!
>
>
> Scott Morris, MCSE, CCDP, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider)
> #4713, JNCIP, CCNA-WAN Switching, CCSP, Cable Communications Specialist,
> IP
> Telephony Support Specialist, IP Telephony Design Specialist, CISSP
> CCSI #21903
> swm@emanon.com
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Bob
> Sinclair
> Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 10:33 PM
> To: David Duncon; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: Class class-default
>
> Hi David,
>
> When I reserve bandwidth for a class and apply that policy to an
> interface,
> I should see the Available Bandwidth parameter decrease from 75% (default
> max-reservable). Each time I reserve more bandwidth in an applied policy
> I
> should see Available bandwidth (show interface) correspondingly decrease.
> This did not happen when I entered the command to reserve bandwidth for
> class class-default, further suggesting that the command is not effective.
>
> HTH,
>
> Bob Sinclair
> CCIE #10427, CCSI 30427, CISSP
> www.netmasterclass.net
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Duncon" <david_ccie@hotmail.com>
> To: <bsin@cox.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 8:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Class class-default
>
>
>> Appreciate your feedback, Bob.
>>
>> As I did not quite get your point (attached clip bellow) , can you please
>> elaborate ?
>>
>> <clip> it does not decrease available bandwidth on the interface. <clip>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> - David
>>
>>>From: "Bob Sinclair" <bsin@cox.net>
>>>To: "David Duncon" <david_ccie@hotmail.com>,<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>>>Subject: Re: Class class-default
>>>Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 08:17:17 -0500
>>>
>>>David,
>>>
>>>I would say definitely option 1. Is the bandwidth command really
>>>effective in class class-default? On my box it takes the command, but it
>>>does not show up in the output of "show policy-map interface," and it
>>>does not decrease available bandwidth on the interface.
>>>
>>>HTH,
>>>
>>>Bob Sinclair
>>>CCIE #10427, CCSI 30427, CISSP
>>>www.netmasterclass.net
>>>
>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "David Duncon"
>>><david_ccie@hotmail.com>
>>>To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>>>Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 2:54 AM
>>>Subject: Class class-default
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi Group,
>>>>
>>>>I got a Q on MQC 'c class class-default behavior. And appreciate your
>>>>guidance on this.
>>>>
>>>>On production network, let us consider that we have end to end L3 MQC
>>>>policy which primarily aimed to protect Business critical apps such as
>>>>Voice and Citrix and bundled every other traffic type such as File
>>>>transfers , HTTP and Emails ..etc in to a common default class with
>>>>random detect feature enabled. Since there is a bit of concern on the
>>>>email (MS Exchange & Lotus Notes Domino) traffic with in a default class
>>>>as we are seeing some drops there. So If we were to segregate &
>>>>prioritize email traffic from the rest of default class traffic , then
>>>>which of the following options is the better way to go. Either to leave
>>>>the email traffic with in class class-default and assign a guaranteed
>>>>bandwidth or to segregate email traffic in to separate class-map with in
>>>>policy-map. The reason I am asking this Q is to understand any negative
>>>>impacts the NON time sensitive email traffic can bring in to policy maps
>>>>processing where already time sensitive traffic types (Voice & citrix)
>>>>are being serviced.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Option 1:
>>>>=================
>>>>
>>>>Policy-map data
>>>>
>>>>Class voice
>>>>Match access-group xxx
>>>>Priority xxx
>>>>
>>>>Class citrix
>>>>Match access-group xxx
>>>>Bandwidth xxx
>>>>
>>>>Class email
>>>>Match access-group xxx
>>>>Bandwidth xxx
>>>>
>>>>Class class-default
>>>>Random detect
>>>>
>>>>Option 2:
>>>>==================
>>>>
>>>>Policy-map data
>>>>
>>>>Class voice
>>>>Match access-group xxx
>>>>Priority xxx
>>>>
>>>>Class citrix
>>>>Match access-group xxx
>>>>Bandwidth xxx
>>>>
>>>>Class class-default
>>>>Random detect
>>>>Bandwidth xxx ---------------------------------------> emails are
>>>>bundled
>
>>>>together along with file transfers & HTTP traffic with in class default.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>And my Qs are :
>>>>
>>>>1) is there any way where we can create 2 class-maps with in class
>>>>class-default , one for email and the rest for all default traffic ? If
>>>>yes is there any benefit in doing that ?
>>>>
>>>>2) or is it safe for me to create another class-map for email and slot
>>>>that in with policy-map itself along with voice & citrix and dedicate
>>>>certain amount of bandwidth to it.
>>>>
>>>>3) Thirdly , what is the between a class class-default with a bandwidth
>>>>command and one with out a bandwidth command. And also what is the
>>>>difference between a class class-default with a random detect command
>>>>and
>
>>>>one with out it. Though I do aware the functionality of congestion
>>>>avoidance techniques such as WRED and RED , I was in the impression that
>>>>besides configuring random detect , you need to map it to a relevant
>>>>DSCP
>
>>>>code which underlines a certain level of drop probability. In other
>>>>words, you are telling the policy engine on what type of traffic you
>>>>want
>
>>>>her to drop should she pick up any early congestion warnings.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Any feed back is much appreciated.
>>>>
>>>>- David.
>>>>
>>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>>SEEK: Now with over 60,000 dream jobs! Click here:
>>>>http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>>>Subscription information may be found at:
>>>>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Find love today with ninemsn personals. Click here:
>> http://ninemsn.match.com?referrer=hotmailtagline
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> 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 - 10:31:30 GMT-3