08-03-2021 12:00 AM
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
Solved! Go to Solution.
08-03-2021 03:44 AM - edited 08-03-2021 03:58 AM
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
08-03-2021 08:36 AM
08-03-2021 08:42 AM - edited 08-03-2021 08:46 AM
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.
08-03-2021 03:44 AM - edited 08-03-2021 03:58 AM
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
08-03-2021 04:51 AM
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
08-03-2021 08:42 AM - edited 08-03-2021 08:46 AM
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.
08-03-2021 08:36 AM
What kind of video traffic, i.e. real-time or streaming?
08-04-2021 06:04 AM
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
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