cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
695
Views
0
Helpful
4
Replies

policy-map Issue

G3000LEE
Level 1
Level 1

WS-C3650-12X48UR-E

Software Version: 16.9.4

 

The issue is related to the application of a new policy-map and it not been hit. The switch config is show below:

 

class-map match-all CTS

match access-group name CTS

class-map match-all PACEY

match access-group name PACEY

 

policy-map customer_vsx_bandwidth_limit

class CTS

 police cir 350000000 bc 175000

  conform-action transmit

  violate-action drop

class PACEY

 police cir 30000000 bc 5625000

  conform-action transmit

  violate-action drop

class class-default

policy-map customer_allocated_vsx

class class-default

 bandwidth percent 100

 queue-buffers ratio 100

  service-policy customer_vsx_bandwidth_limit

policy-map default_buffer_que

class class-default

 bandwidth percent 100

 queue-buffers ratio 100

 

ip access-list extended CTS

permit ip any x.x.x.x x.x.x.x

permit ip x.x.x.x x.x.x.x any

deny  ip any any

ip access-list extended PACEY

permit ip any host x.x.x.x

permit ip host x.x.x.x any

deny  ip any any

 

(access list IP details hidden but set up with the correct addresses)

 

The new config is highlighted in bold.

 

The below show the PACEY map is not been hit but CTS is

 

TFM20-DIST-3650-B#show policy-map interface gi1/0/17

GigabitEthernet1/0/17

 

 Service-policy output: customer_allocated_vsx

 

   Class-map: class-default (match-any)

     6494049035 packets

     Match: any

     Queueing

 

     (total drops) 30174599

     (bytes output) 4617005411418

     bandwidth 100% (1000000 kbps)

     queue-buffers ratio 100

 

     Service-policy : customer_vsx_bandwidth_limit

 

       Class-map: CTS (match-all)

         6487482186 packets

         Match: access-group name CTS

         police:

             cir 350000000 bps, bc 175000 bytes, be 175000 bytes

           conformed 3339873693272 bytes; actions:

             transmit

           exceeded 102268355219 bytes; actions:

             drop

           violated 0 bytes; actions:

             drop

           conformed 39460000 bps, exceeded 509000 bps, violated 0000 bps

 

       Class-map: PACEY (match-all)

         0 packets

         Match: access-group name PACEY

         police:

             cir 30000000 bps, bc 5625000 bytes, be 5625000 bytes

           conformed 0 bytes; actions:

             transmit

           exceeded 0 bytes; actions:

             drop

           violated 0 bytes; actions:

             drop

           conformed 0000 bps, exceeded 0000 bps, violated 0000 bps

 

       Class-map: class-default (match-any)

         6566849 packets

         Match: any

 

 

Any help would be appreciated 

1 Accepted Solution

Accepted Solutions

I also lab it on a router and it's working but not on a switch. This is an issue with a customer so there must be something they're not doing right or a bug.

 

I have access to just about every bit of hardware, so I will lab it up on the same switch and software to see if I get the same result

View solution in original post

4 Replies 4

pman
Spotlight
Spotlight

Hi,

 

Did you make sure that the source ip that configured in PACEY ACL actually transmits data through GigabitEthernet1/0/17 in out direction?

 

i have checked it and i got hits:

 

Router#show policy-map interface gigabitEthernet 0/2 | b PACEY
Class-map: PACEY (match-all)
1363 packets, 154937 bytes
5 minute offered rate 5000 bps, drop rate 0000 bps
Match: access-group name PACEY
police:
cir 30000000 bps, bc 5625000 bytes, be 5625000 bytes
conformed 1363 packets, 154937 bytes; actions:
transmit
exceeded 0 packets, 0 bytes; actions:
drop
violated 0 packets, 0 bytes; actions:
drop
conformed 5000 bps, exceeded 0000 bps, violated 0000 bps

Class-map: class-default (match-any)
3698 packets, 418292 bytes
5 minute offered rate 5000 bps, drop rate 0000 bps
Match: any

 

 

 

we have merged these into one policy by creating a single ‘service-policy output customer_allocated_vsx’, in which that policy is a Parent/Child QOS setup?

 

So we now have policy map ‘customer_allocated_vsx’ as the PARENT which has policy map ‘customer_vsx_bandwidth_limit’ as the CHILD containing the two classes (CTS and PACEY)

 

policy-map customer_vsx_bandwidth_limit

class CTS

 police cir 350000000 bc 175000

  conform-action transmit

  violate-action drop

class PACEY

 police cir 30000000 bc 5625000

  conform-action transmit

  violate-action drop

class class-default

policy-map customer_allocated_vsx

class class-default

 bandwidth percent 100

 queue-buffers ratio 100

  service-policy customer_vsx_bandwidth_limit

policy-map default_buffer_que

class class-default

 bandwidth percent 100

 queue-buffers ratio 100

 

interface GigabitEthernet1/0/17

description XXXXXX ETH3

switchport trunk allowed vlan 513

switchport mode trunk

switchport nonegotiate

load-interval 30

no cdp enable

no snmp trap link-status

spanning-tree portfast trunk

spanning-tree bpduguard enable

service-policy output customer_allocated_vsx

end

 

Can you please get them to clarify why this Parent/Child relationship is not correct/working and provide a quick example of how it should be created?

Yes, it has been tested but now the Policy config has changed and I have updated the post.

I also lab it on a router and it's working but not on a switch. This is an issue with a customer so there must be something they're not doing right or a bug.

 

I have access to just about every bit of hardware, so I will lab it up on the same switch and software to see if I get the same result

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community:

Review Cisco Networking products for a $25 gift card