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
Yes, I am suggesting a parent shaper to limit bandwidth to bandwidth to what's logically available. Otherwise, existing QoS policy won't engage for prioritization until physical interface congests. (Existing policers should engage, except for implicit LLQ policers. This is why I question CCTV is the problem.)
Yes, believe you can use police commands within child policy and you would prioritize as desired. How? This would be by making your existing policy the child policy being used by a parent policy with a 2.5 Mbps shaper.
Something like:
Policy Map QoS-OUT
class class-default
shape 2500000
service-policy QoS-OUT-child
Policy Map QoS-OUT-child
Class Email
priority 512 (kbps)
Class SQL
priority 512 (kbps)
Class File-Copy
police cir 1024000 bc 32000
conform-action transmit
exceed-action drop
Class CCTV
police cir 384000 bc 12000
conform-action transmit
exceed-action drop
BTW, I'm generally against using policers since they allow otherwise available bandwidth to go unused. You might find the above revised QoS-OUT policy, without the child policy, may provide even better overall service.
