cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
1614
Views
0
Helpful
8
Replies

Apply QOS setting in GRE tunnel

william.law1
Level 1
Level 1

Hi all,

I apply QOS setting in the GRE tunnel, it is normal after i apply the QOS setting

 

Three day later, We have many packet loss of ping 8.8.8.8. We got the error in the router. Please find the below message.

 

The error message

Jan 7 11:49:36.193: %LINEPROTO-5-UPDOWN: Line protocol on Interface Tunnel262, changed state to downuser-defined classes with queueing features are not allowed in a service-policy at sub-interface/pvc/service-group
if there is fair-queue configured on parent

 

I read essay in the forum. They said that we can't apply fair-queue in the GRE tunnel. Am i correct?

 

This is my QOS setting in my cisco router

 

policy-map PM-INBOUND-G0/1/x-MARKING
class CM-VOICE
set dscp ef
class CM-VIDEO
set dscp af41
class CM-CRITICAL-APP
set dscp af31
class CM-DATA-MGMT
set dscp af21
class CM-SCAVENGER
set dscp default


policy-map tunnel1
class CM-EF
priority percent 5
class CM-AF4x
priority percent 10
class CM-AF3x
bandwidth percent 35
fair-queue
class CM-AF2x
bandwidth percent 20
fair-queue
class class-default
fair-queue
policy-map tunnel1-SHAPE-44M
class class-default
shape average 44000000
service-policy tunnel1
!

 

Thank you very much for your assistance.

 

8 Replies 8

Hi balaji.bandi,

The model is cisco router C1111-8P

The ios version is C1100-universalk9_ias.16.09.02.SPA.bin

Cisco IOS Software [Fuji], ISR Software (ARMV8EB_LINUX_IOSD-UNIVERSALK9_IAS-M), Version 16.9.2, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc4)

 

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Hello,

 

I don't see fair queueing applied to the parent policy (tunnel1-SHAPE-44M) to be honest. It seems to be correctly applied to the child policy (tunnel1).

 

Just to be sure, you are applying tunnel1-SHAPE-44M to the tunnel, right ?

 

interface Tunnel262

service-policy tunnel1-SHAPE-44M

 

It could be different for subinterfaces. Try and get rid of the fair queueing altogether:

 

policy-map tunnel1
class CM-EF
priority percent 5
class CM-AF4x
priority percent 10
class CM-AF3x
bandwidth percent 35
--> no fair-queue
class CM-AF2x
bandwidth percent 20
--> no fair-queue
class class-default
--> no fair-queue
policy-map tunnel1-SHAPE-44M
class class-default
shape average 44000000
service-policy tunnel1

Hello Georg,

Thank you for give me suggestion, but the QOS setting affect my live network before. I want to 100% sure to apply the configuration.

 

I'm not sure can i apply fair queueing in GRE tunnel.

Hello

I assume from your OP you have the policy/class map mixed up- assumption here is it should read as below::

class-map match-all CM-DATA-MGMT
match xx
class-map match-all CM-CRITICAL-APP
matchxx
class-map match-all CM-VIDEO
match xx
class-map match-all CM-VOICE
match xx
class-map match-all CM-SCAVENGER
match xx

policy-map tunnel1
class CM-VOICE
priority percent 5

class CM-VIDEO
priority percent 10

class CM-CRITICAL-APP
bandwidth percent 35
fair-queue

class CM-DATA-MGMT
bandwidth percent 20
fair-queue

class class-default
fair-queue

 

policy-map tunnel1-SHAPE-44M
class class-default
shape average 44000000
service-policy tunnel1

int tun1
qos pre-classify < not required if you do have it applied
service-policy output tunnel1-SHAPE-44M



Please rate and mark as an accepted solution if you have found any of the information provided useful.
This then could assist others on these forums to find a valuable answer and broadens the community’s global network.

Kind Regards
Paul

As @paul driver notes, your class-maps appear to be "mixed up".  What's confusing, your class maps are setting DSCP values (BTW, scavenger, by RFC, is CS1; it's not default, i.e. BE) and not matching anything.  Further, your policy map doesn't show any class maps with their class names.

Paul also notes you don't need "qos pre-classify" on the tunnel interface (if being used).  That's correct.  It's only needed if you need to match pre-encapsulated packet fields (for matching) beyond the ToS byte (which is copied from original packet) if service policy applied on physical interface.

BTW, Paul's suggested policy map doesn't show a bandwidth allocation for class-default.  Don't recall Cisco guaranteeing what bandwidth class-default would obtain w/o it (we might assume remaining available, but that's an assumption).  So, I recommend it's good practice to explicitly set it.  If you do want class-default to use whatever is left over, you might have:

class class-default
bandwidth remaining percent 100
fair-queue

Cannot be sure, as I'm unfamiliar with C11xxs, but CBWFQ, before HQF, QoS only supported FQ in class-default.  Otherwise, in both pre-HQF and post-HQF, I've used service policies on other Cisco routers' tunnels, using FQ.

Hi Joseph,

Let me try to allocate remain bandwidth in class class-default

 

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Hi paul,

My router have below configuration. I forgot to post it.

class-map match-all CM-DATA-MGMT
match xx
class-map match-all CM-CRITICAL-APP
matchxx
class-map match-all CM-VIDEO
match xx
class-map match-all CM-VOICE
match xx
class-map match-all CM-SCAVENGER
match xx

 

I have classification is based on DSCP code, so I don't need to apply qos pre-classify command in tunnel 1. Am I correct?

 

Note:  The qos pre-classify command can be used in order to classify traffic based on values other than IP precedence or DSCP. For example, you might want to classify packets based on IP flow or Layer 3 information, such as source and destination IP address for which this command can be used. The qos pre-classify command is required only if you classify traffic on IP, protocol, or port. If classification is based on DSCP code, then qos pre-classify is not required.

 

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/support/docs/quality-of-service-qos/qos-policing/10106-qos-tunnel.html#qoscomm

 

Thank you very much for your assistance.