From: Darby Weaver (ccie.weaver@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 26 2009 - 04:39:25 ARST
I have a project where the links are not 10/100/1000 but are instead bundled
T-1's and so they will experience congestion at some point. The project is
at least 30-days out though. Keep me in mind if you want to see the
results. FYI - LLQ is definately a part of the solution and GRE tunnels may
be included due to the exact requirements but I'm still investigating and
I'm not certain the additional overhead in my scenario is worthwhile to use
the technology in this case. I hope to get the chance to mock it up this
week or at worst NLT than next week. Time does fly.
On 1/25/09, Scott M Vermillion <scott_ccie_list@it-ag.com> wrote:
>
> Wow, this just hit my inbox! List is slowly grinding to a halt again,
> evidently.
>
> The real question I guess is whether or not that physical interface you're
> talking about will ever experience congestion? If not, again, your LLQ is
> just kind of taking up space in the configs. I still occasionally get
> involved with mobile/tactical systems and this is something I sometimes run
> into. Used to be a lot of the cellular data cards had serial interfaces,
> so
> I really could experience congestion. Now everything is 10/100/1000, so I
> can't ever experience congestion (until I hit the cell network but by then
> it's too late!). Whether or not I apply QoS to the tunnel or the physical
> depends on specifics of the system, how many tunnels I'm feeding into the
> given interface, whether or not I'm doing IPSec or just GRE, etc. Also, I
> do a lot of DMVPN with these mobile systems, with mGRE everywhere (even on
> the spokes since they often hit multiple Head End routers), to which (as
> far
> as I know) you still cannot apply a service policy, so I have no choice but
> to deal with the physical interfaces for QoS. But now with DMVPN Phase 3,
> we're supposed to be able to do per-SA QoS. Man, that'll be sweet! Can't
> wait to try it out (and would love to hear from anyone who already has)...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Jason Madsen
> Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 8:53 AM
> To: Cisco certification
> Subject: Re: QoS Over GRE
>
> oh...forgot to mention that initially it looks like the way to do it is via
> QoS Pre-Classification and nested MQC. although, I wonder if simply
> applying a non-nested priority MQC to the physical interface that the
> tunnel
> uses and then applying QoS Preclass on the tunnel if that would work?
>
> Jason
>
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 8:49 AM, Jason Madsen <madsen.jason@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > does anyone have any experience in doing priority-queuing over GRE
> > tunnels? I found an article by Cisco, but I can't say that it's all that
> > I'm looking for.
> >
> > I don't want to do any QoS other than priority-queuing over the tunnels
> > unless required.
> >
> > Here's the one link I found:
> >
> >
> >
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk543/tk545/technologies_tech_note09186a0080
> 17405e.shtml
> >
> > ...looking for more.
> >
> > Jason
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Mar 01 2009 - 09:43:40 ARST