07-24-2012 08:11 AM - edited 03-07-2019 07:56 AM
I'm trying to split a 20 mb pipe that comes in from my ISP so that 1 server gets a dedicated 5 mb and the remaining ips behind the router get the remaining 15 mb. I put this in place thinking it would do the trick but it didn't:
access-list 110 permit ip host AA.BB.CC.180 any
access-list 120 permit ip host AA.BB.CC.178 any
class-map match-all lifesize
match access-group 110
class-map match-all remaining_ips
match access-group 120
policy-map internetpriority
class lifesize
police cir 5000000
exceed-action drop
class remaining_ips
police cir 15000000
exceed-action drop
policy-map physical
class class-default
police 20000000 conform-action transmit exceed-action drop
service-policy internetpriority
interface FastEthernet0/0
description Connection to Internal Switch
ip address AA.BB.CC.177 255.255.255.248
service-policy output physical
I tried using bandwidth instead as well but it also didn't seem to yield the desired result. Wondering if I missed something or if I applied it incorrectly?
Solved! Go to Solution.
07-24-2012 08:22 AM
Hello David,
usually for nested policies the parent policy is a shaper and the child policy implements queuing.
The parent policy creates a logical pipe at specified bit rate and the child policy provides resource partitioning among classes with the great advantage of being an elastic mechanism if one class does not use all of its resources they are left for use to other classes
So I would suggest
policy-map physical
class class-default
shape 200000000
service-policy QUEUES
policy-map QUEUES
class lifesize
bandwidth 5000
class class-default
fair-queue
Nesting policers is not common.
Hope to help
Giuseppe
07-24-2012 02:26 PM
Hello David,
feel free to post the error messages.
I have made a typing error I should have written shape average 20000000
see QOS Command reference shape average provides better control
Have you modified the bandwidth settings on the interface?
Hope to help
Giuseppe
07-24-2012 08:22 AM
Hello David,
usually for nested policies the parent policy is a shaper and the child policy implements queuing.
The parent policy creates a logical pipe at specified bit rate and the child policy provides resource partitioning among classes with the great advantage of being an elastic mechanism if one class does not use all of its resources they are left for use to other classes
So I would suggest
policy-map physical
class class-default
shape 200000000
service-policy QUEUES
policy-map QUEUES
class lifesize
bandwidth 5000
class class-default
fair-queue
Nesting policers is not common.
Hope to help
Giuseppe
07-24-2012 08:29 AM
Ok, thanks for the quick response. I'll give that at a try and post back the results.
07-24-2012 01:29 PM
I just tried adding the config example above and it errors out when trying to add the shape statement under policy-map physical. If I do a shape ? I have the following items to choose from:
adaptive Enable Traffic Shaping adaptation to BECN
average configure token bucket: CIR (bps) [Bc (bits) [Be (bits)]], send out Bc only per interval
fecn-adapt Enable Traffic Shaping reflection of FECN as BECN
fr-voice-adapt Enable rate adjustment depending on voice presence
max-buffers Set Maximum Buffer Limit
peak configure token bucket: CIR (bps) [Bc (bits) [Be (bits)]], send out Bc+Be per interval
adaptive Enable Traffic Shaping adaptation to BECN
average configure token bucket: CIR (bps) [Bc (bits) [Be (bits)]], send out Bc only per interval
fecn-adapt Enable Traffic Shaping reflection of FECN as BECN
fr-voice-adapt Enable rate adjustment depending on voice presence
max-buffers Set Maximum Buffer Limit
peak configure token bucket: CIR (bps) [Bc (bits) [Be (bits)]], send out Bc+Be per interval
I tried doing "shape peak xxxxxxx" and a shape average but those errored out as well.
07-24-2012 02:26 PM
Hello David,
feel free to post the error messages.
I have made a typing error I should have written shape average 20000000
see QOS Command reference shape average provides better control
Have you modified the bandwidth settings on the interface?
Hope to help
Giuseppe
07-24-2012 02:33 PM
Thanks Giuseppe. I had tried the shape average but it failed, but I realized the problem. It was the last 0 in the 2000xxx so I just dropped one off and it went through. I'll try to add the service-policy to the interface now and see if they can test it tomorrow.
Thanks.
08-02-2012 07:25 AM
i just got confirmation that this worked as expected for outbound traffic. If i wanted to apply to inbound traffic as well would I just need to do "service-policy input physical" for that interface as well?
08-02-2012 09:33 AM
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
Inbound is more problematic. You'll only be able to police and policing is really only effective with rate-adaptive traffic, and even then, it's not precise.
As policy like:
policy police_server_in
class lifesize
police average 5000000
Discover and save your favorite ideas. Come back to expert answers, step-by-step guides, recent topics, and more.
New here? Get started with these tips. How to use Community New member guide