02-15-2012 07:04 PM - edited 03-04-2019 03:17 PM
Hi Community,
Scenario:
Config:
HQ WAN Router - Current
interface GigabitEthernet0/1
service-policy output wan-qos
class-map match-any mgmt
match access-group name mgmtclass-map match-any ldap
match protocol ldapclass-map match-any abcd
match access-group 112class-map match-any voip-signal
match protocol skinnymatch protocol mgcp
class-map match-any voip-mediamatch protocol rtp
class-map match-any rdp
match access-group 111!
policy-map wan-qos class iccs
bandwidth 1024class voip-media
priority 164class voip-signal
bandwidth 48class rdp
bandwidth 64
class mgmt
bandwidth 16class ldap
bandwidth 32 class class-default random-detect
!
New QoS policy for HQ to Branch voice traffic
***** Classify Voice traffic to Branch *****
access-list 102 permit ip <HQ IP> <Branch IP>class-map voice-branch-traffic match access-group 102
***** Giving voice traffic a guarantee of 200 kbps with a burst of ~ 20kbps *****
policy-map Priority-Voice-branch-Traffic
class voice-branch-traffic
priority 200 20000 ***** Max traffic out to branch will be limited to 3.6Mbps (10% reserved) *****policy-map branch-Traffic
class class-defaultshape average 3600000
service-policy Priority-Voice-branch-Traffic
Now to apply this new QoS policy within the already current (wan-qos) of the HQ router, would the following way be correct ?
policy-map wan-qos class abcd
bandwidth 1024class voip-media
priority 164class voip-signal
bandwidth 48class rdp
bandwidth 64
class mgmt
bandwidth 16class ldap
bandwidth 32 class class-default shape average 30000000 ----> HQ WAN Link is 30M (random-detect had to be removed to apply the policy)
service-policy branch-Traffic ----> Shaping HQ to Branch Voice traffic to be less than 3.6M
Is this the correct way to apply the new "branch-Traffic" QoS policy under the existing one "wan-qos" on the HQ router ?
Regards
Vivek
02-16-2012 02:45 AM
Hi! This is correct. Here is the example with policer you can reference:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/12_2t/12_2t13/feature/guide/ft3level.html
02-16-2012 10:22 AM
Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
Hmm, not quite right for the following reasons.
First, if your going shape traffic to 30 Mbps, you need to shape all traffic. Your parent's shaper is only defined in class-default; other classes could exceed the 30 Mbps limit.
Second, some shapers, I believe don't account for L2 overhead, and if they don't you need to account for that. Unfortunately, L2 overhead, as a percentages, varies based on frame's size. (Often setting shaper to 10 to 15% below nominal rate seems to work okay.)
Third, when supporting VoIP, where jitter is a consideration, you may need to minimize Tc from default. Different platforms/IOSs have different defaults, usually either 4 ms or 25 ms.
Forth, ideally you would want to shape all 4 Mbps for the branch, also using the above considerations, but if a 3 level hierarchy isn't supported, yours is good, but again because of strict timing considerations for VoIP, you want the child's shaper to use a small Tc too. For this configuration, you do want a separate child class for VoIP, but LLQ won't really trigger unless the child policy sees congestion at the parent's shaper.
PS:
Also working VoIP, you sometimes also need to adjust tx-ring-limit.
02-16-2012 02:35 PM
Thank you for your comments Eugene & Joseph.
JosephDoherty wrote:
First, if your going shape traffic to 30 Mbps, you need to shape all traffic. Your parent's shaper is only defined in class-default; other classes could exceed the 30 Mbps limit.
The physical interface has a limit placed on it as 30M bandwidth and so the bandwidth within the classes of "wan-qos" should come into effect and not send anything more than the 30M limit set of the interface.
JosephDoherty wrote:
Forth, ideally you would want to shape all 4 Mbps for the branch, also using the above considerations, but if a 3 level hierarchy isn't supported, yours is good, but again because of strict timing considerations for VoIP, you want the child's shaper to use a small Tc too. For this configuration, you do want a separate child class for VoIP, but LLQ won't really trigger unless the child policy sees congestion at the parent's shaper.
All other branches have good bandwidth wan links except this particular branch which only has a 4m link. I think a 3-level hierarchy is supported on the WAN router. The only issue was I wasn't sure if my configuration was following the best pratice in terms of combining the QoS policies.
So the way I have configured and combined the QoS policy, is that correct ? I'll research the tx-ring-limit and Tc values as well.
Thanks
Vivek
02-16-2012 05:19 PM
Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
"The physical interface has a limit placed on it as 30M bandwidth and so the bandwidth within the classes of "wan-qos" should come into effect and not send anything more than the 30M limit set of the interface."
I would expect a rate limit, but you miss the issue. If class-default is shaped to 30 Mbps while class abcd adds another 10 Mbps, your policy would allow sending 40 Mbps but the provider's rate limiter will drop 25% of your traffic. Problem is, the 25% can also be your class-default. Rate limiters don't create back pressure, i.e. nothing is queued.
"I think a 3-level hierarchy is supported on the WAN router. The only issue was I wasn't sure if my configuration was following the best pratice in terms of combining the QoS policies.
So the way I have configured and combined the QoS policy, is that correct ? I'll research the tx-ring-limit and Tc values as well."
If a 3-level is supported, you want a structure something like:
policy-map level1
class class-default
shape average 30000000
service policy level2
policy-map level2
class abcd
bandwidth x
.
.
class ldap
bandwidth y
class special-branch
shape average 4000000
service policy level3
policy-map level3
class voice
priority 200
class class-default
fair-queue
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide