Dynamic QOS

[ilya_tyapugin]

Hello. sorry for my English

Help me to solve my problem.

We have class B network and cisco 2800, 3600, 3800 asa We need to share bandwidth equally between all users (ip addresses). I know a can write class map and match access list to it. one access-list bind to one ip address but we have about 500 ip addresses , so is there  any way to share bandwidth among users equally? I mean if it is only 2 users they have 5 mb of total 10 and it there are 5 users they automatic share 2 mb

Thanks

[Joseph W. Doherty]

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

Excluding ASAs, CBWFQ class-default fair-queue might work well for you.

[Florin Barhala]

QoS it's used for prioritizing, queueing some traffic classes; so your issue is how to classify all your users.

What I would try is to use some blocks of IP addresses, and try to split up your network in departments. So instead of 500 traffic classes, you can use 10 classes and use shaping for each one.

[abrissonnet]

Hello,

I know that is possible on 6500 platform (SUP32 and 720). This feature is called UBRL (User Based Rate Limiting) or Microflow Policing. It           allows you to provide a certain amount of bandwidth to users (bases on src or dst IP address) :

policy-map pmap

     class class-default

          police flow mask src-only XXXX XXXX conform-action transmit exceed action drop

     !

!

But I don't know if this feature is available on your platform.

[ilya_tyapugin]

I'm going to try simple Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ) and aplly it on interface , as I read

The first and most obvious difference is that  WFQ does not allow classification options to be configured! WFQ  classifies packets based on flows. A flow consists of all packets that have the same source and destination IP  address, and the same source and destination port numbers

I will check it

Do you think it is going to work?

[Joseph W. Doherty · Accepted solution]

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

Ilya_Tyapugin wrote:
I'm going to try simple Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ) and aplly it on interface , as I read
The first and most obvious difference is that  WFQ does not allow classification options to be configured! WFQ  classifies packets based on flows. A flow consists of all packets that have the same source and destination IP  address, and the same source and destination port numbers
I will check it
Do you think it is going to work?

I think it might, although CBWFQ, if supported, seems to scale better with regard to performance and you do have the option to extend how it works.  A basis FQ configuration isn't much more complex than interface WFQ, for example:

inteface serial0

fair-queue

vs.

policy-map CBWFQ

class class-default

fair-queue

interface serial0

service-policy output CBWFQ

[shehzadtesleem]

O man you dont need to implement QoS for this purpose; router will serve this purpose by default.

Suppose you have 10 Mbps link and if 1 host is using it will take all b/w

if 2 hosts will use it will be divided 10/2

it 3 hosts will use it will be divided 10/3 and so on.

[Joseph W. Doherty]

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

Alas, I've found sharing bandwidth, and providing predictable performance, often not that simple.

For example, just the other day was on a remote router.  Awful telnet response.  Looked at outbound WAN interface - it was saturated.  FIFO queuing being used.  Ping times to other side of WAN link, were:

ping 10.179.247.65

Type escape sequence to abort.

Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.179.247.65, timeout is 2 seconds:

!!!!!

Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 564/575/588 ms

enabled WFQ, offered load the same but ping reponse now:

ping 10.179.247.65

Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 100-byte ICMP Echos to 10.179.247.65, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (5/5), round-trip min/avg/max = 20/23/28 ms

Telnet now normally responsive.