On 5/1/13, Wes Tribble <westrib...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have a question for the QOS gurus out there.
cisco-nsp might be a better place to post your question. But in any case, this option looks right: > Another Idea I had was to create a bunch of shaper classes all feeding the > same child policy for priority queuing and bandwidth reservations based on > DSCP markings. I’m just not exactly sure that this is allowed or > supported. see http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/2007-October/044508.html So they just shaped at the hub towards the spoke to prevent overrunning the PE-CE link at the spoke. Another advantage was they didnt' waste hub-PE bandwidth for traffic that would be dropped at the spoke PE-CE link anyway. which has nothing to do with IOS-XE but does sound like what you're wanting to do. Regards, Lee > > We are having some problems with packet loss for our > smaller MPLS locations. This packet loss is due to the large speed > differential on our Hub site(150mb/s) in comparison the the branch office > locations(single T-1 to 4.5mb/s multilinks). This packet loss only seems > to impact really bursty applications like our Web Proxy. I have been > around and around with WindStream to give me some extra buffer or enable > random early detection on the smaller interfaces in my MPLS network. So > far they are unwilling to do a custom policy and none of their standard > policies have enough buffer to handle the bursts. They do FIFO tail drop > in every queue, so I can’t even choose a policy that has WRED implemented. > > > > I am looking for a way to solve the problem on my side. I > can create a shaper for the proxy and match off an access-list to the > smaller sites, but I am either forced to do bandwidth reservations for each > site, or have multiple sites share the same shaper. Here is an example of > what I was playing around with: > > > > ip access-list extended ProxyT1Sites > > permit tcp any host 10.x.x.x 10.x.x.x 0.0.0.255 > > permit tcp any host 10.x.x.x 10.x.x.x 0.0.0.255 > > > > class-map match-any ProxyShaperT1 > > match access-group name ProxyT1Sites > > > > policy-map WindStream > > class VOICE > > priority percent 25 > > set dscp ef > > class AF41 > > bandwidth percent 40 > > set dscp af41 > > queue-limit 1024 packets > > class ProxyShaperT1 > > shape average 1536 > > bandwidth percent 1 > > set dscp af21 > > queue-limit 1024 packets > > class class-default > > fair-queue > > set dscp af21 > > queue-limit 1024 packets > > > > > > Another Idea I had was to create a bunch of shaper classes all feeding the > same child policy for priority queuing and bandwidth reservations based on > DSCP markings. I’m just not exactly sure that this is allowed or > supported. I also would run out of bandwidth allocation on the policy if I > use the true bandwidth number of 150mb/s. It is on a Gig port so I could > just take the bandwidth statement off of the interface to give myself > enough room for all of the shaper allocations. > > > > Something like this(I am omitting the access-list that matches the branch > subnet and class map for brevity): > > > > policy-map PerSiteShaper > > class FtSmith > > shape average 1536 > > bandwidth 1536 > service policy Scheduler > class Dallas > > shape average 4500 > > bandwidth 4500 > service policy Scheduler > class NYC > > shape average 100000 > > bandwidth 100000 > service policy Scheduler > class-default > service-policy Scheduler > > policy-map Scheduler > class VOICE > > priority percent 25 > > set dscp ef > > class AF41 > > bandwidth percent 40 > > set dscp af41 > > queue-limit 1024 packets > > class class-default > > fair-queue > > set dscp af21 > > queue-limit 1024 packets > > > > > > > Just looking for some ideas that do not involve building tunnels to our > remote offices. Thanks in advance, > > > > *Wes Tribble* >
