From: Chris Lewis (chrlewiscsco@gmail.com)
Date: Wed May 31 2006 - 12:59:26 ART
Vincent/Dave,
Using match not does not work for fragmentation, as Scott points out. I can
only repeat again, for 7200 platfroms and below, you cannot selectively
fragment.
Here is a configuration example.
Now assuming the other end of DLCI has frame-relay traffic shaping and
fragmentation enabled, the R1 end of DLCI 102 looks like this. First look at
the fragmentation statistics.
interface dlci frag-type frag-size in-frag out-frag
dropped-frag
Serial0/0 102 end-to-end 100 80 115
0
now ping and look again
R1(config-router)#do ping 123.123.123.2
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 123.123.123.2, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 60/60/60 ms
R1(config-router)#do sho fram frag
interface dlci frag-type frag-size in-frag out-frag
dropped-frag
Serial0/0 102 end-to-end 100 90 125 0
So you can see the counters go up by the nunmber of fragemented ICMP
packets, even though the policy-mpa says do not match. Basically the
fragmentation is happening at the interface level, and the policy-map is
executed within the class prior to getting to the interface.
The router configuration here is as follows:
class-map match-all NO_VOICE
match not access-group 100
!
!
policy-map FRAGMENT
class NO_VOICE
priority 24
!
interface Serial0/0
ip address 123.123.123.1 255.255.255.0
encapsulation frame-relay
frame-relay traffic-shaping
frame-relay map ip 123.123.123.2 102 broadcast
frame-relay interface-dlci 102
class FRAG
no frame-relay inverse-arp
!
map-class frame-relay FRAG
frame-relay fair-queue
frame-relay fragment 100
!
map-class frame-relay frag
service-policy output FRAGMENT
access-list 100 permit icmp any any
Dave,
In your config there are a couple of things that may have been causing
issues. In some IOS if you configure a policy-map, assign a class and do not
define an action, it does not always behave as you expect. Also I'm not sure
how you were checking fragmentation, or if fragmentation was enabled on the
remote end.
On 5/31/06, Vincent Mashburn <vmashburn@fedex.com> wrote:
>
> If you are utilizing frame-relay and nbar, you could do something like
> the following:
>
> Class-map no-fragment
> Match not protocol rtp
>
> Policy-map no-frag
> Class no-fragment
>
> Map-class test
> Service-policy output no-frag
> Fragment 60
>
> Then, apply the map-class to your frame-relay traffic-shaped interface.
>
> Also, note that you can do this without nbar, but you will have to use
> an access-list to match on port numbers.
> Hope this helps.
>
> Vince Mashburn
> Voice / Data Engineer
> 901-263-5072
> CCVP, CCNP, CCDA,Network +
> Cisco IP Telephony Support Specialist
> Cisco IP Telephony Operations Specialist
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Koen Zeilstra
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 3:19 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: frame-relay fragment & exclude voice pakkets from being
> fragmented
>
> Hi group,
>
> Suppose I want to use frame-relay fragmentation and use fragments of 60.
>
> However voice traffic should not be fragemented at all. How is this
> achieved?
>
> A service policy under a FR can select more options however
> fragmentation
> is not part of the policy-map options.
>
> On DocCD I found frame-relay ip rtp priority. Hoever in my opionion this
>
> is a queueing strategy and not excluding traffic from being fragemented.
>
> thanks in advance for your answer,
>
> Koen
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:23 ART