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
So, all physical interfaces offer much higher bandwidth than what's actually available, correct?
If so, on the router, not 100% positive since I haven't yet worked with 15.x. You might be able to use GTS (generic traffic shaping) if it's still supported, but don't know what it uses for queuing (it used to use WFQ).
Or, you could use CBWFQ shaper, which I believe since HQF (12.4.20) might only use FIFO, unlike its prior WFQ. (I don't recall what the shaper alone uses in the newer versions.) However, it might use just FQ. If it doesn't, a subordinate child policy should be able to provide FQ.
e.g. (something like)
interface ?Ethernet#
traffic-shape 2000000
or
policy-map shape2Mbps
class class-default
shape average 2000000
or
policy-map shape2Mbps
class class-default
shape average 2000000
service-policy FQ
policy-map FQ
class class-default
fair-queue
and
interface ?Ethernet#
service-policy shape2Mbps output
For your switch, much depends on the actual platform, knowing the IOS version, alone, isn't enough information to recommend a QoS technique.
