From: Bob Sinclair (bsin@cox.net)
Date: Mon Dec 27 2004 - 10:17:17 GMT-3
David,
I would say definitely option 1. Is the bandwidth command really effective
in class class-default? On my box it takes the command, but it does not
show up in the output of "show policy-map interface," and it does not
decrease available bandwidth on the interface.
HTH,
Bob Sinclair
CCIE #10427, CCSI 30427, CISSP
www.netmasterclass.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Duncon" <david_ccie@hotmail.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Monday, December 27, 2004 2:54 AM
Subject: Class class-default
> Hi Group,
>
> I got a Q on MQC 'c class class-default behavior. And appreciate your
> guidance on this.
>
> On production network, let us consider that we have end to end L3 MQC
> policy which primarily aimed to protect Business critical apps such as
> Voice and Citrix and bundled every other traffic type such as File
> transfers , HTTP and Emails ..etc in to a common default class with random
> detect feature enabled. Since there is a bit of concern on the email (MS
> Exchange & Lotus Notes Domino) traffic with in a default class as we are
> seeing some drops there. So If we were to segregate & prioritize email
> traffic from the rest of default class traffic , then which of the
> following options is the better way to go. Either to leave the email
> traffic with in class class-default and assign a guaranteed bandwidth or
> to segregate email traffic in to separate class-map with in policy-map.
> The reason I am asking this Q is to understand any negative impacts the
> NON time sensitive email traffic can bring in to policy maps processing
> where already time sensitive traffic types (Voice & citrix) are being
> serviced.
>
>
> Option 1:
> =================
>
> Policy-map data
>
> Class voice
> Match access-group xxx
> Priority xxx
>
> Class citrix
> Match access-group xxx
> Bandwidth xxx
>
> Class email
> Match access-group xxx
> Bandwidth xxx
>
> Class class-default
> Random detect
>
> Option 2:
> ==================
>
> Policy-map data
>
> Class voice
> Match access-group xxx
> Priority xxx
>
> Class citrix
> Match access-group xxx
> Bandwidth xxx
>
> Class class-default
> Random detect
> Bandwidth xxx ---------------------------------------> emails are bundled
> together along with file transfers & HTTP traffic with in class default.
>
>
> And my Qs are :
>
> 1) is there any way where we can create 2 class-maps with in class
> class-default , one for email and the rest for all default traffic ? If
> yes is there any benefit in doing that ?
>
> 2) or is it safe for me to create another class-map for email and slot
> that in with policy-map itself along with voice & citrix and dedicate
> certain amount of bandwidth to it.
>
> 3) Thirdly , what is the between a class class-default with a bandwidth
> command and one with out a bandwidth command. And also what is the
> difference between a class class-default with a random detect command and
> one with out it. Though I do aware the functionality of congestion
> avoidance techniques such as WRED and RED , I was in the impression that
> besides configuring random detect , you need to map it to a relevant DSCP
> code which underlines a certain level of drop probability. In other words,
> you are telling the policy engine on what type of traffic you want her to
> drop should she pick up any early congestion warnings.
>
>
> Any feed back is much appreciated.
>
> - David.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> SEEK: Now with over 60,000 dream jobs! Click here:
> http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jan 03 2005 - 10:31:30 GMT-3