From: CCIEin2006 (ciscocciein2006@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Sep 04 2006 - 13:47:29 ART
IMHO nested policies are over-kill for this solution.
Is there any reason to do per-vc QOS instead of QOS on the main interface?
Maybe Brian D/Brian M or Scott can shed some light?
On 9/4/06, route flap <routeflap@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What about this
>
> Router-1#show run policy-map
> Building configuration...
>
> Current configuration : 406 bytes
> !
> policy-map VOICE
> class VOICE
> priority percent 50
> class class-default
> bandwidth percent 15
> policy-map QOSS.1
> class class-default
> shape average 1536000 15360 0
> service-policy VOICE
> policy-map VOICE2
> class VOICE
> priority percent 50
> class class-default
> bandwidth percent 25
> policy-map QOSS.2
> class class-default
> shape average 1536000 15360 0
> service-policy VOICE2
> !
> end
>
> Router-1#show run class-map
> Building configuration...
>
> Current configuration : 57 bytes
> !
> class-map match-all VOICE
> match protocol rtp
> !
> end
>
> Router-1#show run int s1/1.1
> Building configuration...
>
> Current configuration : 109 bytes
> !
> interface Serial1/1.1 point-to-point
> ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
> service-policy output QOSS.1
> end
>
> Router-1#show run int s1/1.2
> Building configuration...
>
> Current configuration : 109 bytes
> !
> interface Serial1/1.2 point-to-point
> ip address 10.1.2.1 255.255.255.0
> service-policy output QOSS.2
> end
>
> Thanks for your invaluable comments
> RF
>
> On 9/3/06, Aamir Aziz <aamiraz77@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi there ppl,
> >
> > A friend of mine forwarded this task to me, i dont have a definite
> > answer so any replies are appreciated:
> >
> > R1's serial interface 1/0 will be used for a customer network by
> > having two sub-interfaces. Apply Quality of Service to the
> > corresponding sub-interfaces. Customers ip address and bandwidth to be
> > allocated as following
> >
> > 1. 1/0.1 = 10.1.1.1/24 bandwidth 15%
> > 2. 1/0.2 = 10.1.2.1/24 bandwidth 25%
> > 3. critical voice traffic bandwidth 50%
> >
> > R1 is a HUB already having a sub-interface s0/0.123 (FR-Multipoint)
> > connected to two spoke routers.
> >
> > This is a possible solution, not sure:
> >
> > ip access-list extended s0/0.1
> > permit ip any 10.1.1.0 0 0.0.0.255
> > ip access-list extended s0/0.2
> > permit ip any 10.1.2.0 2.0 0.0.0.255
> > ip access-list extended VOICE
> > permit udp any any range 16384 32767 precedence 5
> >
> > class-map s0/0.1
> > match ip add s0/0.1
> > class-map s0/0.2
> > match ip add s0/0.2
> > class-map VOICE
> > match ip add VOICE
> >
> > Policy-map s0/0.1
> > class s0/0.1
> > band percent 15
> > class VOICE
> > band percent 50
> >
> > Policy-map s0/0.2
> > class s0/0.2
> > band percent 25
> > class VOICE
> > band percent 50
> >
> > map-class frame-relay s0/0.1
> > service policy out s0/0.1
> > map-class frame-relay s0/0.2
> > service policy out s0/0.2
> >
> > int s0/0
> > frame-relay traffic- shaping
> > max-reserved-band 90
> > int s0/0.1
> > class s0/0.1
> > int s0/0.2
> > class s0/0.2
> >
> > Please ignore any syntax mistakes as i didnt get time to type it on
> > the router, but this logic does it make any sense for the above task??
> >
> > Thanks
> > Aamir
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > Subscription information may be found at:
> > http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Oct 01 2006 - 16:55:39 ART