Tyler, I would love to implement a policy similar to that one. Unfortunately, I don't believe you can have two tiers of shaping like that in a policy. Most of the two-tiered shaping solutions I have seen involve using a VRF to shape to the aggregate rate and then use a second VRF to shape to the site rate. This is to get around the three-tier policy limitations.
With that said, if you have something like that configured and working, I would love to see the config and the "show policy-map interface" output. That is exactly the kind of policy I was originally looking to implement, but then I ran into those limitations. Thanks for the reply. Great idea in concept. If only we could implement. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Tyler Haske <tyler.ha...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you want to prevent a PE router from deciding which ingress packets to > drop, the only plan is to send packets to spoke sites at or below the spoke > line-rate. The only good way to do that is shaping on the hub router. > > policy-map parent_shaper > class class-default > shape average 100000000 < --- 100Mbps parent shaper. > service-policy site_shaper > > policy-map site_shaper > class t1_site > shape average 1536000 > service-policy qos_global > class multilink_site > shape average 3072000 > service-policy qos_global > class class-default > service-policy qos_global > > policy-map qos_global > ... whatever you typically use here.... > > Tyler Haske > > > > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Wes Tribble <westrib...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have a question for the QOS gurus out there. >> >> 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. >> >
