Restrict bandwidth utilization on a ASR1004

[robert.mcclain]

I have a set of users on a Metro-E connection that I need to restrict there bandwidth utilization on that Metro-E. The port is 150M port and they currently use 88% or better on  a constant basis. i want to restrict them down to 60 - 65% and allow the other users whats left.

What is the best way to accomplish this?

[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

"Best way" depends on why your want to restrict a set of users.

What I would suggest, shape for your logical bandwidth cap (150 Mbps [less 10 to 15% for L2]) and have a child policy that does FQ.

[robert.mcclain]

Joseph,

I have servers coming from one direction that uses 88% of that 150M circuit, where as servers coming in the opposite direction are handcuffed because there isn't enough bandwidth to replicate data to there partners. So I want to tie the 1st set of servers to only use a set limit of the bandwidth and the rest can be used by the others.

This is my first time working with shaping, so here is what I came up with. Am I way off here?

ip access-list extended PHOTO_OUT
 permit ip host 10.x.x.x 10.220.x.x 0.0.1.255
 permit ip host 10.x.x.x 10.220.x.x 0.0.1.255
 permit ip host 10.x.x.x 10.220.x.x 0.0.1.255
 permit ip host 10.x.x.x 10.220.x.x 0.0.1.255

class-map match-any CLIENT_SHAPING_PHOTO
 match access-group name PHOTO_OUT

Policy-map CLIENT_SHAPING
Class CLIENT_SHAPING_PHOTO
bandwidth 60 percent
class class-default
bandwidth 40 percent

policy-map L2_traffic_Shaping
class class-default    
shape average 135000000
service-policy CLIENT_SHAPING

interface GigabitEthernet0/0/2
service-policy output L2_traffic_Shaping

[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

No, you're not off at all.

However, if you have a HQF IOS version, would still suggest FQ in both classes.  Also, I believe many shapers don't account for L2 overhead.  I also recommend shaping 10 to 15% slower than your bandwidth value, but since you've configured 135 Mbps (90%) you may be okay there.

PS:

BTW, bandwidth in the child classes only "restricts" if the other class(es) want bandwidth too.  (Which I think is a good thing - i.e. your classes can take advantage of otherwise unused bandwidth.)

[robert.mcclain]

Joseph,

I will add the FQ command(s) in the classes shortly. I just want to make sure I understand your added comments. My goal here is to restrict the one set of users always. Are you saying by putting the restriction in the "child" class that these users will get 100% until the other class requires bandwidth?

[Joseph W. Doherty]

yep