From: mahmoud genidy (ccie.mahmoud@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Dec 07 2008 - 12:23:23 ARST
Thanks Pavel for your test. Great work.
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Pavel Bykov <slidersv@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mahmoud, this really is not correct, as you can see in the tests I have
> done to prove Cisco documentation wrong.
> max-reserved-bandwidth command does not influence policy maps in any way
> other than configuration
> Please see the following document:
> http://www.boxoid.org/cisco/MAX-RESERVED-BANDWIDTH-AND-CBWFQ.pdf
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 5:13 AM, mahmoud genidy <ccie.mahmoud@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> - The bandwidth reservation using percent in MQC is absolute with IOS
>> 12.4
>> - By default bandwidth reservation is up to %75 percent. The other %25 is
>> to support best-effort and control traffic, and Layer 2 overhead.
>>
>> Based on that information it is now clear that:
>>
>> - If we need to reserve more than %75 of the interface bandwidth for
>> different traffic classes then we have to use [ maximum-reservation
>> bandwidth ] command to change the percentage.
>>
>> - For default class if left as it is then it will be best effort. And it
>> will share bandwidth remaining from other classes with the layer-2 overhead
>> and control traffic.
>>
>> So the answer for the question sent is:
>>
>> First we have to use: maximum-reserved bandwidth 100
>>
>> Second under class default we have to use: bandwidth percent 10
>>
>> This is my understanding so far. Please correct me if you think I'm wrong.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mahmoud.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 2:23 PM, mahmoud genidy <ccie.mahmoud@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I agree with you if you will go with (map-class and traffic shaping)
>>> option you will have to statically define CIR and MINCIR as well.
>>>
>>> But the point is based on what the question says I think we don't have to
>>> configure shaping or map-class. We can directly assign the service policy to
>>> the interface.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Nick Matthews <matthn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> From what I understand of frame QoS in this situation -
>>>>
>>>> If you're using a map-class with a service policy (but not using
>>>> interface-level frame-relay traffic shaping) you will need to assign the
>>>> bandwidth level via cir/mincir or a hierarchical shaping policy. I noticed
>>>> that doing 'show policy-map interface' will not show anything until one of
>>>> these is configured.
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to correct if this isn't right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -Nick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Pavel Bykov <slidersv@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Regarding #4: bandwidth is not reserved by default for class-default
>>>>> and it
>>>>> can easily starve. To really alocate bandwidth to class-default so it
>>>>> has
>>>>> minimum guarantee you'd need to use "bandwidth" command.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:44 AM, mahmoud genidy <ccie.mahmoud@gmail.com
>>>>> >wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 1- For [ Critical voice ] wording. Is it a proctor question to ask if
>>>>> he it
>>>>> > requires matching precedence 5 in the ACL used to match the voice
>>>>> traffic?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 2- Again is it a proctor question if I like to confirm if [ maximum
>>>>> > reserved bandwidth 100 ] is required or not?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > 4- Regarding the class-default as the question says remaining
>>>>> bandwidth
>>>>> > will go for the default class. This is the default behavior any way
>>>>> so I
>>>>> > think no extra configuration is required for it.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 3:33 AM, Pavel Bykov <slidersv@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Here is my take:
>>>>> >> 1. I'd match udp port ranges AND precedence 5 to be sure. Maybe even
>>>>> mark
>>>>> >> it as critical on input, depending on context of other QoS tasks.
>>>>> >> 2. It does not imply that, but it does seem logical in this example,
>>>>> since
>>>>> >> he asks you to allocate "remaining bandwidth" to default, which
>>>>> would be the
>>>>> >> rest of the interface bandwidth
>>>>> >> 3. Interface
>>>>> >> 4. It is NOT POSSIBLE to configure fair-queue if you put bandwidth
>>>>> >> reservation. In this case, you are asked to reserve the res to class
>>>>> >> default, so you would go:
>>>>> >> class class-default
>>>>> >> bandwidth percent 10
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> So you will not be able to put fair queue in there.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:16 PM, mahmoud genidy <
>>>>> ccie.mahmoud@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> Hi
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> I have a QoS scenario over FR link and I'm not sure which way
>>>>> should I
>>>>> >>> go.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> The case is as follows.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> A Router *R1* with S0/0 configured with FR with two PVC on main
>>>>> interface
>>>>> >>> (HUB). It is connected with two other routers R2 & R3 over FR as
>>>>> spokes.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> The question says: On *R1* Allocate bandwidth as follows:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> - % 25 of S0/0 bandwidth for network 10.1.1.0/24
>>>>> >>> - % 35 of S0/0 bandwidth for network 10.1.2.0/24
>>>>> >>> - % 30 of S0/0 bandwidth for CRITICAL voice traffic
>>>>> >>> - Remaining bandwidth is for Class-Default
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> My questions are:
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> - When he says *CRITICAL* voice does this mean in the extended ACL
>>>>> to use
>>>>> >>> precedence 5, or it is not necessary as Voice by default is
>>>>> critical
>>>>> >>> traffic?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> - When he says for example %25 *OF S0/0* does this implies we have
>>>>> to
>>>>> >>> configure [ maximum-reserved-bandwidth 100 ] ?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> - The interface in question is FR with two PVCs. Does this mean we
>>>>> have
>>>>> >>> to
>>>>> >>> apply the service policy through a FR MAP-CLASS with CIR equals
>>>>> S0?)
>>>>> >>> bandwidth? Or we can directly apply the service policy on the
>>>>> serial
>>>>> >>> interface?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> - Is it preffered to configure fair-queue for class-default in this
>>>>> case,
>>>>> >>> or
>>>>> >>> just leave it as it is?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Thanks in advance for your time.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Mahmoud
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>>> >>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>>>> >>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> --
>>>>> >> Pavel Bykov
>>>>> >> ----------------
>>>>> >> Don't forget to help stopping the braindumps, use of which reduces
>>>>> value
>>>>> >> of your certifications. Sign the petition at
>>>>> >> http://www.stopbraindumps.com/
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Pavel Bykov
>>>>> ----------------
>>>>> Don't forget to help stopping the braindumps, use of which reduces
>>>>> value of
>>>>> your certifications. Sign the petition at
>>>>> http://www.stopbraindumps.com/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Pavel Bykov
> ----------------
> Don't forget to help stopping the braindumps, use of which reduces value of
> your certifications. Sign the petition at http://www.stopbraindumps.com/
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jan 01 2009 - 12:53:07 ARST