Class-map used by two policies in the same interface and router

[alison.hou]

Here is the configs:

class-map match-any Voice

match ip dscp ef

policy-map INBOUND

class Voice

   priority percent 40

   set dscp ef

class class-default

   fair-queue!

policy-map OUTBOUND

class Voice

   priority 1000

class class-default

   fair-queue!

interface ATM1/ima0.1 point-to-point

service-policy input INBOUND

service-policy output OUTBOUND

Can this work?

Alison

[marcusauman]

Yes you can reference a class map in multiple policies. Configuration looks good as well minus the ! at the end of your fair-queue statements.

Please rate if this was helpful.. Thanks

[cadet alain]

Hi,

of course you can use the same class-map on different policy-maps , that's why MQC was created for: modularity and reuse

BUT in your case your policy can't be applied inbound because you can only configure CBWFQ or LLQ outbound( bandwidth or priority command) because this is a congestion management feature and congestion occurs on egress queues.

Alain.

[marcusauman]

Alain is correct. Good catch!

[alison.hou]

Thank you for the catch. My goal is to retrict traffic from a microsoft DS server in the data center to this remote site. The outbound qos policiy is the existing policy for voice. For the inbound, I am planning to add a class for micorsoftDS to give it 3% bandwidth. How should I do it if I can't use CBWFQ or LLQ for inbound.

class-map match-any Voice

match ip dscp ef

class-map microsoftDS

            match access group 102

!

policy-map VoIP_COS

  class Voice

    priority 1000

  class class-default

   fair-queue

!

policy-map LLQ_40percent

class Voice

   priority percent 40

   set dscp ef

class microsoftDS

   bandwidth percent 3

class class-default

   fair-queue!

access-list 102 permit tcp host 10.80.14.140 eq 445 any

access-list 102 permit udp host 10.80.14.140 eq 445 any

interface ATM1/ima0.1 point-to-point

service-policy input LLQ_40percent

service-policy output VoIP_COS

alison

[cadet alain]

Hi,

use the police keyword instead of priority.

Regards.

Alain.