IP to ATM QoS [7:58784]
Dear All, I have two Cisco 7206 with IOS 12.2(11)T and connnected them directly through ATM-PA3 Server --- router1--- (ATM PVC)--- router 2 Client ATM PVC will be the bottleneck of the netwok as Server/Client are connected to routers through FE. Before I configured Per-VC WRED, the FTP download throughput can achieve about 120kbps. Once I apply the WRED on router1, the FTP throughput drop sharply and only have about 50kbps. As I checked that the queueing on ATM interface is WRED and there is a lot of packet drop. However, the packet drop also found if no WRED was configured (ie, the queueing in ATM is FIFO) but it will have 120kbps. My question is that why WRED will suffer the performance drop? Or WRED not configured well? Below is router configuration: ! ! random-detect-group testing precedence 0 200 1000 10 precedence 1 300 1000 10 precedence 2 400 1000 10 precedence 3 500 1000 10 precedence 4 600 1000 10 precedence 5 700 1000 10 precedence 6 800 1000 10 precedence 7 900 1000 10 ip subnet-zero ip cef ! ! ! interface FastEthernet0/0 ip address 10.0.0.1 255.255.255.0 duplex full ! interface ATM1/0 no ip address no atm ilmi-keepalive ! interface ATM1/0.100 point-to-point ip address 30.0.0.1 255.255.255.0 pvc 1/100 random-detect attach testing vbr-nrt 256 256 10 encapsulation aal5snap ! ! interface FastEthernet2/0 ip address 20.0.0.1 255.255.255.0 duplex full ! ip classless router1#sh queueing interface atM 1/0 Interface ATM1/0 VC 1/100 Queueing strategy: random early detection (WRED) Exp-weight-constant: 9 (1/512) Mean queue depth: 200 Total output drops per VC: 248 classRandom drop Tail dropMinimum Maximum Mark pkts/bytes pkts/bytesthresh thresh prob 0 248/33818 0/0 2001000 1/10 10/0 0/0 3001000 1/10 20/0 0/0 4001000 1/10 30/0 0/0 5001000 1/10 40/0 0/0 6001000 1/10 50/0 0/0 7001000 1/10 60/0 0/0 8001000 1/10 70/0 0/0 9001000 1/10 rsvp 0/0 0/0 36 40 1/10 router1#sh queueing interface atM 1/0 Interface ATM1/0 VC 1/100 Queueing strategy: random early detection (WRED) Exp-weight-constant: 9 (1/512) Mean queue depth: 204 Total output drops per VC: 403 classRandom drop Tail dropMinimum Maximum Mark pkts/bytes pkts/bytesthresh thresh prob 0 403/54796 0/0 2001000 1/10 10/0 0/0 3001000 1/10 20/0 0/0 4001000 1/10 30/0 0/0 5001000 1/10 40/0 0/0 6001000 1/10 50/0 0/0 7001000 1/10 60/0 0/0 8001000 1/10 70/0 0/0 9001000 1/10 rsvp 0/0 0/0 36 40 1/10 rgds, LoChing Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=58784&t=58784 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IP to ATM QoS [7:58784]
how did you classify your tcp packets? I think WRED treats unclassified packets as lower priority packets (precedence=0). i saw random-drops in precedence 0 packets. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=58873&t=58784 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IP to ATM QoS [7:58784]
Hi, In fact, the packet classification/marking was made in CPE side. The voice paket will have IP precedence 5 while normal packet will have default value (precedence 0). The network setup is a trial to test the impact of WRED. As I read through cisco documentation about IP-to-ATM CoS, it covers WRED, WFQ or CLP to deploy Per-PVC QoS. However, if I applied WRED, WFQ to the PVC, this will make the PVC performance drops. My target is to deploy PER-ATM PVC QoS. If the ATM PVC was congested, it will let the mission-critical traffic pass through first... Hopefuly if you have any alternative solution? Or any idea how to test this feature? The equipment I got in hand is two 7206 routers. rgds, LoChing Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=58961&t=58784 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IP to ATM QoS [7:58784]
Ivan why not make the min threshold and max threshold gap bigger? in your design, ip precedence 5 only have a gap of 300 (700 1000). my opinion is wred reacts fast whenever you reach and exceeds the maximum threshold. it clips all of your packets whenever it reach that state. wred starts to clip packets when it exceeds the min threshold, and when it exceeds the maximum, it clips all. hey that's just my opinion, hope it work :) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59041&t=58784 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IP to ATM QoS [7:58784]
you said you classified your voice traffic as prec 5. how about the other packets? particularly for tcp? you said they put the other packets into the default prec. it might have been the tcp packets where put into the default. wred clips packets by weight, it means lower precedence packets will be clipped first. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59044&t=58784 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IP to ATM QoS [7:58784]
and one more thing, you should not do wred whenever you do VoIP. it might not do you good because it will clipped VoIP packets and introduce delay. what i think is best is you do low latency queing at you routers(make your VoIP packets as priority packets and assign bandwidth to them, while putting your other packets into another class and assign a min guaranteed bandwidth) and introduce them into traffic shaping. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59045&t=58784 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IP to ATM QoS [7:58784]
Hi, Thanks your advice again. I am just trying the method to provide Per-VC QoS based on IP header information (in our case is IP precedence). From cisco documentation, I found WRED, Set-CLP, WFQ/CBWFQ/LLQ will proivde IP-to-ATM CoS. >From your comment, you recommend use queueing method to do that. Can you give me more hints about that? Something like the following class-map voice match ip precedence 5 class-map data match ip precedence 0 policy-map policy1 class voice bandwidth/priority percent 60 class data bandwidth percent 20 interface atm1/0.100 point-to-point pvc 1/100 service-policy output policy1 I'm confused the use of bandwidth and priority command. They are guaranteed bandwidht or reserved bandwidth? In the above example, does it mean the data can only have up to 20% of bandwidth even NO voice traffic persent (no link congestion)? TIA. ivan Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59048&t=58784 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IP to ATM QoS [7:58784]
ivan when you do the priority command, it strictly abides that the application you put in with that command would get that specified BW, and beyond that, packets will be drop. it should be used in delay-sensitive applications, in your case VoIP. the bandwidth command is used to specify that this application should get at least this amount of BW, what I say is this minimum amount of bandwidth. just remember that all of this will only work when your link is congested. if not, its FIFO. and do not set the IP precedence of your other traffic to 0, because not all applications are supposedly lowly. you might get into trouble with that with your other applications. :) you can also set wred with the other classes, but just remember wred isn't for voice. example: access-list 101 permit udp any any range 16384 32767 - for voice access-list 102 permit tcp any any class-map voice match access-group 101 class-map tcp match access-group 102 policy-map voip class voice priority 100 class tcp bandwidth 64 interface atm1/0.100 point-to-point pvc1/11 service-policy out voip Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59058&t=58784 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IP to ATM QoS [7:58784]
Hi, Thanks your details information again. However, is it possible to do QoS based on IP precedence? (Our customer voice-gateway CPE already rewrite the value to 5, so we want to make use of this to implement QoS. Also, we checked that the rest of data traffic will have default precedence value 0) Sample configuration: class-map match-all normal match ip precedence 0 class-map match-all voice match ip precedence 5 ! ! policy-map policy class voice bandwidth percent 50 class normal bandwidth percent 25 interface ATM1/0.100 point-to-point ip address 30.0.0.2 255.255.255.0 pvc 1/100 service-policy output policy If "bandwidth" is the min. guaranteed bandwidth during congestion. How about the "priority" command? Also, I checked the documentation the sum of bandwidth allocated cannot exceed 75% of the link. "The remaining 25% of total bandwidth is kept reserve for unclassified traffic and routing traffic..." Therefore, as above, I can only define 50% to voice and 25% to data. Does it mean I will lost some bandwidth? (I cannot apply max-reserved-bandwidth to sub-interface) Many Thanks again. ivan Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59151&t=58784 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IP to ATM QoS [7:58784]
of course you can use ip precedence for QoS. ip precedence is used to specify the importance of one traffic and enable the appropriate policies for it. but on your side, i'm not quite sure on how you would use the ip precedence set by the customer on their packets going to your side. i think it only implies that whenever a packet with this precedence enters your interface, it should be given this treatment (precedence 5 should be processed first before the other). and besides, precedence should be enabled near the source, and the traffic is inbound to you, and you wanted to do QoS outbound. I think you should to your own marking on your router (or your switch), and enable QoS outbound if this is the case. If your router is the transit router for voice and data (your router connects to remote routers that have voip applications)you can match the ip precedence set by the customer and apply your QoS outbound to the other side, and vice verza. I think this is what you wanted to do. example: class-map match-all class1 match input-interface serial 0 match ip prece 5 (for voice) class-map match-all class2 match input-interface serial 0 match ip prece 0 class-map match-all class3 match input-interface serial 1 match ip prec 5 (for voice) class-map match-all class4 match input-interface serial 1 match ip prec 0 policy-map 1 class class1 priority 128 (you should do priority command for VoIP - answered?) class class2 bandwidth 64 (for data, you can do the bandwidth command) class class-default fair-queue policy-map 2 class class3 priority 128 class class4 bandwidth 256 class class-default fair-queue interface s0 service-policy out 1 (for the other side) interface s1 service-policy out 2 (and for the other csr side) priority command strictly specifies that this application must get this BW, above that it is clipped. bandwidth command specifies that during congestion, this application should use this minimum guaranteed BW. you can use this for data, because tcp is reactive to congestion, and voice, w/c uses udp, is not. for the other question, regarding the allocated 25% for the other services, cisco thinks this is fine, because if you won't specify that, other FR or ATM traffic (like keepalives) would be blocked. it is sort of you loose BW for your data, but is for a good reason. I can't remember the command if there's any for your purpose. maybe u could consult cisco tac for that. hope that helps :) Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59168&t=58784 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IP to ATM QoS [7:58784]
Thanks wanabe, would you mind sending me email address as I have another QoS question (on FR)? I want to have your advice too. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59263&t=58784 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: IP to ATM QoS [7:58784]
ok. email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=59265&t=58784 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
