cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
698
Views
20
Helpful
5
Replies

QoS for Voice/Video

I am Planning to Implement QoS for Voice/Video traffic, Please suggest below config would be fine to start with or there is any improvemnts can be done on it ,, Appriciate your support.

 

class-map match-all VIDEO
match ip dscp af41
class-map match-all VOICE
match ip dscp ef
class-map match-all CALL_SIGNALING
match dscp cs3

 

policy-map QOS_POLICY
class VIDEO
bandwidth percent 25

class VOICE
priority percent 15

class CALL_SIGNALING
priority percent 10


service-policy output QOS_POLICY

 

 

3 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS

Accepted Solutions
paul driver
VIP Mentor

Hello

I would say appending percentage allocation to LLQ and CBWFO classes would be most preffered as then you dont have to necessary change the classs once they have been applied  say when you have a increase of line rate.

 

Possible examples:
class-map match-all VOICE
match ip dscp ef
class-map match-all VIDEO
match ip dscp af41
class-map match-all CALL_SIGNALING
match dscp af31

policy-map qos_parent
class class-default
shape average X0000000
service-policy qos_child

1)
policy-map qos_child
class VOICE
priority percent 15

class VIDEO
bandwidth percent 15

class CALL_SIGNALING
bandwidth percent 10

class class-default
fair-queue

 

 

2)
policy-map qos_child
class VOICE
priority xx000

class VIDEO
bandwidth remaining percent 15

class CALL_SIGNALING
bandwidth remaining percent 10

class class-default
bandwidth remaining percent 75
fair-queue



kind regards
Paul

Please rate and mark posts accordingly if you have found any of the information provided useful.
It will hopefully assist others with similar issues in the future

View solution in original post

Joseph W. Doherty
Hall of Fame Expert

What kind of video traffic, i.e. real-time or streaming?

 

View solution in original post

When defining QoS policies, I always suggest defined bandwidth allocations for all class because otherwise we cannot easily know how one class of traffic will be prioritized vis-à-vis another class.

I also generally recommend, when dealing with some form of low priority traffic, especially if bandwidth intensive, rather than limiting its bandwidth usage, via shaping or policing, de-prioritize it, so, effectively, it can use all other, otherwise unused bandwidth.  I.e. treat it like "scavenger" traffic.

View solution in original post

5 REPLIES 5
paul driver
VIP Mentor

Hello

I would say appending percentage allocation to LLQ and CBWFO classes would be most preffered as then you dont have to necessary change the classs once they have been applied  say when you have a increase of line rate.

 

Possible examples:
class-map match-all VOICE
match ip dscp ef
class-map match-all VIDEO
match ip dscp af41
class-map match-all CALL_SIGNALING
match dscp af31

policy-map qos_parent
class class-default
shape average X0000000
service-policy qos_child

1)
policy-map qos_child
class VOICE
priority percent 15

class VIDEO
bandwidth percent 15

class CALL_SIGNALING
bandwidth percent 10

class class-default
fair-queue

 

 

2)
policy-map qos_child
class VOICE
priority xx000

class VIDEO
bandwidth remaining percent 15

class CALL_SIGNALING
bandwidth remaining percent 10

class class-default
bandwidth remaining percent 75
fair-queue



kind regards
Paul

Please rate and mark posts accordingly if you have found any of the information provided useful.
It will hopefully assist others with similar issues in the future

View solution in original post

Our WAN Link bandwidth is 100MB and already doing shaping for backup traffic between two sites, below config for the same. i didn't get this "policy-map qos_parent"

 

class-map match-any BK_REP_WE_2_Class
match access-group name BK_REP_WE_2_ACL
class-map match-any BK_REP_WD_1_Class
match access-group name BK_REP_WD_1_ACL

 

policy-map WAN_QOS1

class BK_REP_WD_1_Class

 

ip access-list extended BK_REP_WD_1_ACL
10 permit ip x.x.x.x. x.x.x.x x.x.x.x x.x.x.x time-range BK_REP_WD_1_TR
20 permit ip x.x.x.x. x.x.x.x x.x.x.x x.x.x.x time-range BK_REP_WD_1_TR
ip access-list extended BK_REP_WE_2_ACL
10 permit ip host

x.x.x.x host x.x.x.x time-range BK_REP_WE_2_TR
20 permit ip host x.x.x.x host x.x.x.x time-range BK_REP_WE_2_TR
!

time-range BK_REP_WD_1_TR
periodic Sunday 7:30 to 16:00
periodic Monday 7:30 to 16:00
periodic Tuesday 7:30 to 16:00
periodic Wednesday 7:30 to 16:00
periodic Thursday 7:30 to 16:00
!
time-range BK_REP_WE_2_TR
periodic Friday 0:00 to 23:59
periodic Saturday 0:00 to 23:59


shape average 40000000
class BK_REP_WE_2_Class
shape average 90000000
class class-default
fair-queue

When defining QoS policies, I always suggest defined bandwidth allocations for all class because otherwise we cannot easily know how one class of traffic will be prioritized vis-à-vis another class.

I also generally recommend, when dealing with some form of low priority traffic, especially if bandwidth intensive, rather than limiting its bandwidth usage, via shaping or policing, de-prioritize it, so, effectively, it can use all other, otherwise unused bandwidth.  I.e. treat it like "scavenger" traffic.

View solution in original post

Joseph W. Doherty
Hall of Fame Expert

What kind of video traffic, i.e. real-time or streaming?

 

View solution in original post

Updated linke below 

 

class-map match-any CALL_SIGNALING
match dscp cs3
match dscp af31

class-map match-any VOICE
match dscp ef

class-map match-any VIDEO
match ip dscp af41
match dscp cs4
match dscp af31
match dscp cs5

!
policy-map WAN_QOS
class VIDEO
priority percent 25
class VOICE
priority percent 15
class CALL_SIGNALING
priority percent 10