Re: Need help in QOS

Thanks Guys!

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 1:16 AM, ALL From_NJ <all.from.nj_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey yall,
>
> QoS is an area I need to work on ... thanks for this discussion. Dale
> rocks! So would be good to get Dale to weigh in here too.
>
> Yeah, I think offering 6 classes for your customers is fairly common. You
> keep one for real time traffic and one for Net management. Real time should
> be w/ the priority command and net man can be with the bw remaining percent
> command ... should not need much for this class; maybe like 5% ?
>
> Within the other classes you can also configure wred, dscp-based, also
> define bw percent remaining for each of these classes. Having wred in each
> class will offer you some granularity within each class. You can get pretty
> deep in your customer markings and assigning the wred dscp values for each
> each class.
>
> Does this mean you 'kind of' have more than 6 classes to offer for your
> customers? Not really ... but it does offer you quite a bit of granularity
> and allows for you to offer some customers better service within each queue
> / class.
>
> On a side note, you need to make sure the ASR uses pak_priority for local
> control traffic. It should. Just want to make sure this is not being put
> into the class-default as once you define an outgoing policy, you might be
> hurting yourself too.
>
> Unless the customer states otherwise, I would suggest to define or allow
> FTP to fall into the scavenger class, police it, and wred it. FTP will
> always use as much bandwidth as it can ... no doubt about it, FTP will fill
> the link any chance it can.
>
> Lastly, you will need to change the max reserved bw to allow you to
> configure 100%. The bw reamining percents should equal 100% when all is
> said and done.
>
> Just some thougths, hope these make sense. Appreciate the back and forth.
> Take it easy team,
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 8:49 AM, hafiz atif <oops.com_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> the 2nd options is workable to have predefined policies for different
>> markings and mark customers accordingly. But this will again give me only 8
>> different bandwidth assignments which can cover more customers
>> comparatively. Any more suggestions to make it more scalable?
>>
>> There is another point on which i need some suggestions. How can we
>> control the incoming traffic? Lets say, one of the customers is requesting a
>> download from a public FTP server. The ftp server is now sending at a rate
>> greater than my internet bandwidth, now even if i police this download
>> traffic on my router, my external link has already been used. Is there any
>> work around for this? please advice!
>>
>> Best regards!
>>
>>
>> On 5/17/09, ALL From_NJ <all.from.nj_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thinking out loud here and way too tired ... sorry if this is too far
>>> off.
>>>
>>> Any chance that configuring nested service policies will provide more
>>> scale? I do not know the limit to the number of nested policies within a
>>> parent policy ... Basically you could create one policy-map per customer.
>>> Add this to a parent policy-map with shaping configured.
>>>
>>> Another thought might be to configure qos on a per customer basis and
>>> shape, protect, and remark all packets as needed on a per customer basis.
>>> On the uplink, simply configure a single policy which provides different qos
>>> levels for all traffic going.
>>>
>>> You could provide 6 or 7 classes for customers, and keep at least one
>>> class for net management. Just a thought ...
>>>
>>> Not sure this helps much ... time for my bed time ... in NJ, it is a bit
>>> too late for me. Have a good night,
>>>
>>> Andrew Lee Lissitz
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 1:52 AM, Dale Shaw <dale.shaw_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi again,
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 3:40 PM, hafiz atif <oops.com_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > I can't change the speed to 10 mbps because we are planning to
>>>> increase the
>>>> > speed upto 16mbps.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In that case, even 100Mbps is better than 1Gbps. Can you interface do
>>>> 100M, or 1000M only? I appreciate that some 1000BASE-x interfaces are
>>>> 1000-only.
>>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Dale
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________________________________
>>>> Subscription information may be found at:
>>>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Andrew Lee Lissitz
>>> all.from.nj_at_gmail.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Andrew Lee Lissitz
> all.from.nj_at_gmail.com

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Mon May 18 2009 - 17:41:16 ART