Service policy (QOS) on Port-channel - ASR1000 in suspended mode

[kasunrbn]

Hi Team, 

I am trying to implement QOS on my Cisco ASR100 Router. 
Following is the set of Class Maps & Policy maps involved. However I'm getting a message saying the "Parent_QOS_SOHO_Softphone" policy-map is in a suspended state within the Port-Channel. 
I see the solution is by  configuring port-channel load-balancing vlan-manual in global configuration mode. All I want to know is that will this fix my issue? And will this cause any disruption to live traffic? 

PE_EDGE#show policy-map interface Port-channel1.1825
Port-channel1.1825

Service-policy output: Parent_QOS_SOHO_Softphone

Service policy Parent_QOS_SOHO_Softphone is in suspended mode
PE_EDGE#

class-map match-any Voice_Signalling
match access-group name Voice_Signalling_ACL_QOS

class-map match-any Voice_Media
match access-group name Voice_Media_ACL_QOS

class-map match-any BGP_1825
match access-group name BGP_1825_ACL_QOS

policy-map QOS_SOHO_Softphone
class Voice_Media
set ip dscp ef
priority 500000
class Voice_Signalling
set ip dscp af31
bandwidth 300000
class BGP_1825
set ip dscp cs6
class class-default
set ip dscp cs6

policy-map Parent_QOS_SOHO_Softphone
class class-default
service-policy QOS_SOHO_Softphone

interface Port-channel1.1825
service-policy output Parent_QOS_SOHO_Softphone

[kasunrbn]

Hi Team, 
Any update on this? 

[marce1000]

  - FYI : https://community.cisco.com/t5/networking-knowledge-base/suspended-qos-state-on-asr1000/ta-p/3159826

 M.

[kasunrbn]

Thanks Marce. I saw this article already. 
My only concern is will this affect live traffic on the Port-Channel?  Or am I okay to apply this at anytime? 

[marce1000]

        - Any impact will be minimal  so go ahead , 

 M.

[kasunrbn]

Hi Marce / All 

I have applied the change and I can now apply policy maps under the Port channel interfaces. So thank you for that. 

But after doing that, traffic between the Port channel members aren't load balanced. We have 2 x 1G links making up the Port Channel. But all traffic seems to be going on 1 x 1G Link while the other 1G link doesn't carry any traffic. This is a problem for me as we have traffic more than 1G and one link alone cannot handle the traffic.

 

################################################################################

ASR_1001#show etherchannel summary
Flags: D - down P/bndl - bundled in port-channel
I - stand-alone s/susp - suspended
H - Hot-standby (LACP only)
R - Layer3 S - Layer2
U - in use f - failed to allocate aggregator

M - not in use, minimum links not met
u - unsuitable for bundling
w - waiting to be aggregated
d - default port

Number of channel-groups in use: 1
Number of aggregators: 1

Group Port-channel Protocol Ports
------+-------------+-----------+-----------------------------------------------
1 Po1(RU) Gi0/0/1(P) Gi0/0/2(P)

RU - L3 port-channel UP State
SU - L2 port-channel UP state
P/bndl - Bundled
S/susp - Suspended

ASR_1001#

################################################################################

ASR_1001#show etherchannel load-balancing
EtherChannel Load-Balancing Method:
Global LB Method: flow-based
LB Algo type: Source Destination IP

Port-Channel: LB Method
Port-channel1 : vlan-manual (vlanID)

ASR_1001#

################################################################################

ASR_1001#show run interface Port-channel1
Building configuration...

Current configuration : 125 bytes
!
interface Port-channel1
description --- LACP to Hemel_NE40E
no ip address
no negotiation auto
load-balancing vlan
end

ASR_1001#

################################################################################

ASR_1001#show version
Cisco IOS XE Software, Version 17.06.03a
Cisco IOS Software [Bengaluru], ASR1000 Software (X86_64_LINUX_IOSD-UNIVERSALK9-M), Version 17.6.3a, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)

[Joseph W. Doherty]

If supported, you change the LB algorithm to one that provides the best distribution.  NB: depending on device and traffic, you might be unable to distribute across multiple links.

Remember, both sides of Etherchannel may need different LB choices for optimal distribution.

[kasunrbn]

Hi Joseph, 

It used work fine when it was on "flow-based".  So I'm pretty confident that the device and traffic type is capable of load sharing. 

I'm seeing zero traffic on the second link after changing this to VLAN BASED. Do you think the remote device should also support VLAN based Load Balancing as it could be using something else? 

[Joseph W. Doherty]

Each side of Etherchannel, for LB, is completely independent.

If flow based showed multiple link usage, and switching to VLAN LB lost that, reverting back would seem the appropriate thing to do.

[kasunrbn]

Hi Joseph, 
The main reason for going with "VLAN BASED" is because I wanted to apply policy maps to Port Channel interfaces. 
Could the following be a solution? i.e - Define Primary and Secondary links for each VLAN? 

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/td/docs/ios-xml/ios/lanswitch/configuration/xe-16-10/lanswitch-xe-16-10-book/lnsw-vlan-map-gig.html#GUID-104A590F-7F82-42EB-9904-D2A534FE7C8D

[Joseph W. Doherty]

Is this Etherchannel L2 or L3?

[kasunrbn]

They are dot1q interfaces 

ASR_1001#show ip int brief | inc Po
Port-channel1 unassigned YES unset up up
Port-channel1.1751 192.168.21.14 YES NVRAM up up
Port-channel1.1752 192.168.21.12 YES NVRAM up up
Port-channel1.1753 192.168.21.10 YES NVRAM up up
Port-channel1.1754 192.168.21.8 YES NVRAM up up
Port-channel1.1755 192.168.21.6 YES NVRAM up up
Port-channel1.1758 192.168.21.2 YES NVRAM up up

[Joseph W. Doherty]

Ah, then a possible alternative option would be two use your multiple links as independent routed links and ECMP across them.

I haven't studied the VLAN LB option, probably workable but I'm not keen on "manual" anything.

[MHM Cisco World]

how many ports  you use for this port-channel ? is it one port ?

Thanks A Lot
MHM