We have multiple sites connected to a private WAN cloud (Layer 2) with varying CIR's. Our QoS setup from our main site is 3 tiered in order to shape traffic to our overall CIR at the main site and shape traffic on different child classes based on the remote CIR. Parent policy is applied to interface connected to the service provider. We continue to have drops even though we don't seem to be reaching the CIRs for the remote sites or the CIR limit on the ciruit. I've worked with TAC and we have adjusted queue limits based on drops but this is an ongoing issue. Should there be a relationship between the queue limits and shape averages?
Sample config NOTE: Shape averages are 95% of CIR Policy-map Parent class class-default shape average 142500000 queue-limit 1024 packets service-policy ASE-Remotes-Policy policy-map ASE-Remotes-Policy Class site1 shape average 4750000 queue-limit 400 packets service-policy ASE-QoS-Policy Class site2 shape average 19000000 queue-limit 1024 packets service-policy ASE-QoS-Policy class site 3 shape average 95000000 queue-limit 1024 packets service-policy ASE-QoS-Policy ... multiple other sites ... policy-map ASE-QoS-Policy class VoIP priority percent 40 queue-limit 1024 packets class Citrix bandwidth percent 40 queue-limit 1024 packets class class-default queue-limit 1024 packets
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.
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.
Logically, what you're doing makes sense, but only Cisco "knows" how their queuing really works. I've long suspected their embedded CBWFQ shapers have their own queues, which you may not have direct control over for setting their queue depths.
Yes, logically, there's a relationship between bandwidth (including shaping) and queue limits, but it depends on multiple factors. Shaping is also a special case, because although you're trying to emulate a certain link bandwidth, it's not the same.
The cat's out of the bag! In October 2020, Cisco announced the Next Generation of Enterprising Routing Platforms: the Catalyst 8000 Edge Platforms Family including the Catalyst 8200, Catalyst 8300, Catalyst 8500, and Catalyst 8000V. The new family of Cats...
Community Live- Smart Licensing Using Policy (Routing) – A Simplified Licensing Approach
(Live event - Tuesday, 18 May, 2021 at 9:00 am Pacific/ 1:00 pm Eastern / 7:00 pm Paris)
This event will have place on Tuesday 18th, May 2021 at 9:00 hrs PDT&nb...
Welcome to the overview guide that covers the latest in Cisco Networking and Data Center innovations and new product introductions. You'll find information on Intent Based Networking updates, special promotions and free trials, as well as exclusive upcom...
Listen: https://smarturl.it/CCRS8E13 99% of organizations use certifications to make hiring decisions. The reason is simple: Cisco certifications bring valuable, measurable rewards to certified IT professionals and the organizations that employ them....
Cisco AI Endpoint Analytics – Deployment guide
This deployment guide is meant for Cisco AI Endpoint Analytics adoption for customers, partners and everyone focusing on Endpoint Visibility and to how achieve it with Endpoint Analytics. It has sections that...