RE: Policy map question

Anybody have any suggestion ?

>-----Original Message-----
>From: BALAKRISHNAN Balaji
>Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:47 PM
>To: 'robclav_at_gmail.com'; Cisco certification
>Subject: RE: Policy map question
>
>Yes..I tried without queue-limit..No difference.( it assigns default size 64)
>And Yes..there is no matches on the default-class with Option #2.. see below
>
>
>sh policy-map interface Gi0/3.1621
>GigabitEthernet0/3.1621
>
> Service-policy output: parent-E2E
>
> Class-map: class-default (match-any)
> 22249 packets, 33676610 bytes
> 30 second offered rate 8779000 bps, drop rate 650000 bps
> Match: any
> Traffic Shaping
> Target/Average Byte Sustain Excess Interval Increment
> Rate Limit bits/int bits/int (ms) (bytes)
> 10000000/10000000 62500 250000 250000 25 31250
>
> Adapt Queue Packets Bytes Packets Bytes Shaping
> Active Depth Delayed Delayed Active
> - 490 20300 30725824 19699 29824286 yes
>
> Service-policy : child-E2E
>
> Class-map: E2E (match-all)
> 22243 packets, 33675902 bytes
> 30 second offered rate 8778000 bps, drop rate 650000 bps
> Match: ip dscp af11 (10)
> Queueing
> Output Queue: Conversation 266
> Bandwidth 50 (%)
> Bandwidth 5000 (kbps)Max Threshold 500 (packets)
> (pkts matched/bytes matched) 21651/32779614
> (depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 492/1567/0
>
> Class-map: class-default (match-all)
> 0 packets, 0 bytes
> 30 second offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
> Match: any
> Queueing
> Output Queue: Conversation 271
> Bandwidth 50 (%)
> Bandwidth 5000 (kbps)Max Threshold 64 (packets)
> (pkts matched/bytes matched) 0/0
> (depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/0/0
>
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: robclav_at_gmail.com [mailto:robclav_at_gmail.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:28 PM
>>To: BALAKRISHNAN Balaji; Cisco certification
>>Subject: Re: Policy map question
>>
>>Hi,
>>I believe Queue limit doesn't burst , Did you try without it?
>>Do you have matches at default-class using the second option?
>>Hth,
>>Robclav
>>Enviado desde mi BlackBerry(r) de Vodafone
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: BALAKRISHNAN Balaji <Balaji.BALAKRISHNAN_at_swift.com>
>>Sender: nobody_at_groupstudy.com
>>Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 20:03:29
>>To: ccielab_at_groupstudy.com<ccielab_at_groupstudy.com>
>>Reply-To: BALAKRISHNAN Balaji <Balaji.BALAKRISHNAN_at_swift.com>
>>Subject: Policy map question
>>
>>All,
>>
>>I have a policy map question and want know what is the difference in the QOS
>>flow behavior between the two child policy definition
>>
>>Policy-map parent-E2E
>>Class class-default
>>Shape average 10000000
>>Service policy child-E2E
>>
>>
>>#1
>>Policy-map child-E2E
>>Class class-default
>>Bandwidth percent 100
>>
>>#2
>>
>>Policy-map child-E2E
>>Class E2E
>>Bandwidth percent 50
>>queue-limit 500
>>Class class-default
>>Bandwidth percent 50
>>
>>
>>What is the difference in the QOS behavior if I use #2 child policy instead of
>>#1 when the traffic peaks to 10Mbps but all matches the class E2E. I
>>thought the behavior would be same because even though option #2 has only 50%
>>in E2E class , it would borrow the bandwidth from the default-class when
>>traffic needs more. But what is noticed is that when I use option #1, there
>>are no queue-drops but with option #2, I see huge queue drops ?? why ??
>>
>>
>>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
Received on Fri Sep 23 2011 - 20:27:43 ART