From: Chris Lewis (chrlewiscsco@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Jun 03 2006 - 19:01:14 ART
I don't see anything wrong with using shape and bandwidth together, they do
different things as has already been stated.
Chris
On 6/3/06, Pierre-Alex <paguanel@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Small mistake, 25 percent goest to each of the three customer and the
> rest to the default-class.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Pierre-Alex <paguanel@hotmail.com>
> *To:* Petr Lapukhov <petrsoft@gmail.com> ; Chris Lewis<chrlewiscsco@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 03, 2006 11:21 PM
> *Subject:* Re: hierarchical shaping versus shaping in conjunction to cbwfq
>
>
> Petr,
>
> Just for info, I found an example on cco of using both the "shape" and
> "bandwidth" to the same value. :)
>
> Is my interpretation of this configurations correct:
>
> "The shapper creates a congestion points for the sub-classes at 241K. 241
> K of bandwidth is allocated to the shapping queue, out of which ,
> 25 percent goes to each of the four customers."
>
> It does make sense to have the same value for the shapping and the queue
> in this example doesn't it?
>
>
> =================================
>
>
> Policy Map GTS_in_ModCLI Configuration
>
> Router(config)# policy-map GTS_in_ModCLI
>
> Router(config-pmap)# class shaped
>
> Router(config-pmap-c)# bandwidth 241
>
> Router(config-pmap-c)# shape average 241000
>
> Router(config-pmap-c)# service-policy CBWFQ_in_GTS
>
>
>
>
> Policy Map CBWFQ_in_GTS Configuration
>
> The policy map called CBWFQ_in_GTS has four CBWFQ classes:
>
> Router(config)# policy-map CBWFQ_in_GTS
>
> Router(config-pmap)# class cust_A
>
> Router(config-pmap-c)# bandwidth percent 25
>
> Router(config-pmap)# class cust_B
>
> Router(config-pmap-c)# bandwidth percent 25
>
> Router(config-pmap)# class cust_C
>
> Router(config-pmap-c)# bandwidth percent 25
>
> Router(config-pmap)# class class-default
>
> Router(config-pmap-c)# fair
>
>
> In this second example, the Class-Based Shaping feature is configured for
> the class called shaped in the policy map called GTS_in_ModCLI. The class
> shaped is shaped to an average rate of 241,000 bits per second (bps). CBWFQ
> is also enabled on the class, which guarantees a bandwidth of 241 kbps
> during times of congestion at the interface.
>
> The shaped class is a congestion point for all the subclasses that
> comprise that class. Therefore, the subclasses can be further differentiated
> in the shaped class. All these subclasses are part of the policy map,
> CBWFQ_in_GTS, that is attached to the shaped class.
>
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios122/122cgcr/fqos_c/fqcprt4/qcfcbshp.htm#wp1002823
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Petr Lapukhov <petrsoft@gmail.com>
> *To:* Pierre-Alex <paguanel@hotmail.com>
> *Cc:* ccielab@groupstudy.com
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 03, 2006 7:29 PM
> *Subject:* Re: hierarchical shaping versus shaping in conjunction to cbwfq
>
>
> Pierre,
>
> I may put the things a bit unclear, sorry :) The main thing I want
> to point at, is that "bandwith" and "shape" do quite different things.
>
> You are correct, one may use "bandwith" to allocate resourses in case
> of "oversubscription". It's just useless if you set "shape" and
> "bandwidth"
> to equal values :)
>
> Say, if we have 512K physical port speed, and we need to divide it equally
>
> between two classes of traffic in case of congestion.
>
> To achieve that, we issue "bandwidth 256" under each class.
>
> But next, we want let every class use more of available bandwith, in case
> if it's actually available, but not too much :)
>
> So we shape every class to 384k:
>
> policy-map policy
> class class1
> shape average 384000
> bandwidth 256
> class class2
> shape average 384000
> bandwidth 256
>
> HTH
> Petr
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 01 2006 - 07:57:31 ART