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
Excluding the auto discovery qos should any nested QoS under a shaper policy base it's percentages on the shaped traffic rate as opposed to the actual interface?
I believe it should be based on parent's shaper.
You have a point, but I guess I was really looking to leverage NBAR to help me identify what's flowing through the router. I planned on using the auto qos as a baseline and then modifying as needed. I'm getting zero assistance from the applications people on telling me what their apps use. Figured a few weeks of auto discovery with NBAR would help me identify the traffic for prioritization.
Okay, I can understand that but seldom found NBAR discovery of real value, beyond just satisfying curiosity.
Since you're discussing NBAR discovery, assuming you're using a software router and not a switch, just using FQ rather than FIFO often deals well with 90% of all congestion management needs.
