From: Brian McGahan (bmcgahan@internetworkexpert.com)
Date: Tue Oct 18 2005 - 14:57:21 GMT-3
> You are right. I just tested with the following and the bandwidth
> percentage return to "normal". does it make sense that I set both cir
> and mincir be the same value ?
Unless you are doing adaptive shaping the mincir value only affects your
MQC reservations, so in this case yes you would want to set them to be
the same.
> Besides, my first configuration try to directly use policy-map command
> on frame-relay interface (without use Frame-Relay Traffic shaping).
> Does the QOS work ?
Yes it will work, but you will have one queue for all VCs on the
interface. If you only have one circuit on the interface then it
doesn't matter. See the below thread for more info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200509/msg01678.html
http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200509/msg01679.html
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
24/7 Support: http://forum.internetworkexpert.com
Live Chat: http://www.internetworkexpert.com/chat/
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
Of
> The Great Ryan
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 12:36 PM
> To: Edwards, Andrew M
> Cc: Cisco certification
> Subject: Re: CBWFQ on Frame-Relay Interface
>
> You are right. I just tested with the following and the bandwidth
> percentage return to "normal". does it make sense that I set both cir
> and mincir be the same value ?
>
> map-class frame-relay FRTS
> frame-relay cir 128000
> frame-relay mincir 128000
> service-policy output CBWFQ
>
>
> Besides, my first configuration try to directly use policy-map command
> on frame-relay interface (without use Frame-Relay Traffic shaping).
> Does the QOS work ?
>
>
> Thanks for your reply !
> Ryan
>
>
> 2005/10/19, Edwards, Andrew M <andrew.m.edwards@boeing.com>:
> > Ryan,
> >
> > When you use FRTS and CBWFQ with the bandwidth percentage parameter,
the
> > percentage is based upon the minCIR value for FRTS.
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > andy
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: The Great Ryan [mailto:pv.ryan@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 10:59 AM
> > To: Cisco certification
> > Subject: CBWFQ on Frame-Relay Interface
> >
> > Hi, Group,
> >
> > I want to classfiy two types of traffic and apply CBWFQ on 128k
> > Frame-Relay Interface. Does my configuration work on Frame-Relay
> > Interface?
> > The "show policy-map" seem ok
> >
> > ==========================
> > class-map match-all traffic-a
> > match access-group 15
> > class-map match-all traffic-b
> > match access-group 25
> > !
> > policy-map QOS
> > class traffic-a
> > bandwidth percent 25
> > class traffic-b
> > bandwidth percent 50
> > !
> > interface Serial0/0
> > bandwidth 128
> > service-policy output QOS
> > encapsulation frame-relay
> > !
> > R5#s policy-map interface s0/0
> >
> > Serial0/0
> >
> > Service-policy output: QOS
> >
> > Class-map: traffic-a (match-all)
> > 0 packets, 0 bytes
> > 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
> > Match: access-group 15
> > Queueing
> > Output Queue: Conversation 265
> > Bandwidth 25 (%)
> > Bandwidth 32 (kbps) Max Threshold 64 (packets)
> > (pkts matched/bytes matched) 0/0
> > (depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/0/0
> >
> > Class-map: traffic-b (match-all)
> > 0 packets, 0 bytes
> > 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
> > Match: access-group 25
> > Queueing
> > Output Queue: Conversation 266
> > Bandwidth 50 (%)
> > Bandwidth 64 (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)
> > 23 packets, 1243 bytes
> > 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
> > Match: any
> > ==========================
> >
> >
> > However, if I try to use Frame-Relay Traffic shaping together with
> > "service policy output", the bandwidth percent seem to be not
correct.
> > 25% traffic become 16k only. Why it changes ?
> >
> > ==========================
> > class-map match-all traffic-a
> > match access-group 15
> > class-map match-all traffic-b
> > match access-group 25
> > !
> > policy-map QOS
> > class traffic-a
> > bandwidth percent 25
> > class traffic-b
> > bandwidth percent 50
> > !
> > interface Serial0/0
> > encapsulation frame-relay
> > frame-relay class FRTS
> > frame-relay traffic-shaping
> > !
> > map-class frame-relay FRTS
> > frame-relay cir 128000
> > service-policy output QOS
> > !
> > R5#show policy-map int s0/0 dlci 503
> > Serial0/0: DLCI 503 -
> >
> > Service-policy output: QOS
> >
> > Class-map: traffic-a (match-all)
> > 0 packets, 0 bytes
> > 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
> > Match: access-group 15
> > Queueing
> > Output Queue: Conversation 25
> > Bandwidth 25 (%)
> > Bandwidth 16 (kbps) Max Threshold 64 (packets)
> > (pkts matched/bytes matched) 0/0
> > (depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/0/0
> >
> > Class-map: traffic-b (match-all)
> > 0 packets, 0 bytes
> > 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
> > Match: access-group 25
> > Queueing
> > Output Queue: Conversation 26
> > Bandwidth 50 (%)
> > Bandwidth 32 (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)
> > 0 packets, 0 bytes
> > 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
> > Match: any
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Nov 06 2005 - 22:00:51 GMT-3