Qos Question

[Jay Cambell]

I'm running into an Qos problem.  I noticed the Qos on the routers at my company needs to changed. It looks like the Meta traffic is merging into the voice traffic. The Qos policy is not applied to the serial interface on the router.  I have recommendation but I would like a second pair of eyes.

!

class-map match-any VoIP-Signaling-and-Meta

match ip dscp af31

 match ip dscp cs3

 match access-group name Meta

class-map match-any Meta

match access-group name Meta

class-map match-all VoIP-Traffic

match ip dscp ef

class-map match-any VoIP-Signaling

match ip dscp af31

 match ip dscp cs3

class-map match-any Applications

match access-group name Applications

!

!

policy-map MARK-COS2

class VoIP-Signaling

class CitrixApps

  set ip dscp af32

policy-map VoIP-QoS

class VoIP-Traffic

    priority percent 30

class VoIP-Signaling-and-Meta

    bandwidth remaining percent 40

  service-policy MARK-COS2

class Application

    bandwidth remaining percent 30

  set ip dscp af21

class class-default

    fair-queue

     random-detect dscp-based

interface Serial0/0/0

bandwidth 1536

service-policy output VoIP-QoS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommend

class-map match-any Meta

match ip dscp ef

 match access-group name Meta

class-map match-all VoIP-Traffic

match ip dscp af31

 match ip dscp cs3

match access-group name VoIP

class-map match-any Application

match  ip dscp af21

match access-group name Application

policy-map VoIP-QoS

class VoIP-Traffic

    priority percent 40

    set ip dscp af31

class Meta

    bandwidth remaining percent 30

    set ip dscp ef

  class Application

    bandwidth remaining percent 30

  set ip dscp af21

class class-default

    fair-queue

     random-detect dscp-based

    service-policy VoIP-QoS

!

[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

The original policy is questionable, but (I'm sorry to say) your new policy is possibly even more so.

VoIP signalling traffic and Meta traffic do share a class in the original policy, but it's unclear this would be a problem as VoIP bearer traffic does not.

BTW, no class-map for CitrixApps?

Also BTW, FQ and WRED, in the original policy, can make for some issues (FQ depends on the version of CBWFQ being used, pre or post HQF; optimal WRED usage really needs a QoS expert).

[Jay Cambell]

Thank you for responding.  Your correct.  I placed the wrong recommend.

Recommend

class-map match-any Meta
match ip dscp af31
 match access-group name Meta

class-map match-all VoIP-Traffic
match ip dscp ef
match access-group name VoIP

class-map match-any Application
match  ip dscp af21
match access-group name Application

policy-map VoIP-QoS
class VoIP-Traffic
priority percent 40
set ip dscp ef

class Meta
bandwidth remaining percent 30
set ip dscp af31

class Application
bandwidth remaining percent 30
set ip dscp af21

class class-default
 fair-queue
random-detect dscp-based
service-policy VoIP-QoS

[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

Now you have a "recursive" service-policy.  Hmm, unsure a router would accept, and if it did, I have know idea how it would behave.

I'm also unsure you understand how the original service policy functions.  But whether you do or don't, when forming QoS policies, it helps if you can state what the QoS policy is to accomplish.  Then others might comment on whether the QoS policy makes sense and/or whether any actual policy configuration meets the goals.