QoS suggestion [7:60994]
Hi, If I want to set the voice traffic have high priority and the rest will use fair queue, which cisco queuing method can achieve it? The hardware is 17xx or 26xx. Thanks. It looks like the LLQ or CBWFQ will have guaranteed bandwidth feature during congestion but seems not the solution I am looking for. TIA. rgds, ivan Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60994&t=60994 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: QoS suggestion [7:60994]
You've got a few options. The most basic (and most limited) is using IP RTP Priority. The will prioritize all RTP traffic on the applied interface. The best solution (IMHO) is to use LLQ. Low Latency Queueing can be thought of as CB-WFQ with the added benefit of a priority queue. This is probably what you want to do. Create a class-map (or map-class if it's a frame relay interface) and apply the voice traffic to the priority queue with the "priority" command, and then assign all your other traffic to a "fair queue". CB-WFQ does provide minimum bandwidth guarantee but it does not give you the priority queue that voice traffic likes so much. Hope this helps. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=61024&t=60994 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: QoS suggestion [7:60994]
forgot to add one thing you probably already know this but if you decide to use LLQ for a PPP serial connection (like a t1 or frac t1) you will want to implement LFI (link fragmentation and interleave). this means that your config will be implemented on a "multilink1" interface rather than a physical interface. LFI allows you circumvent excessive serialization delays on slow WAN connections. This does not apply to frame relay interfaces. Cisco has some really good docs on this topic. Let me know if you would like more info. Hope this helps Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=61025&t=60994 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: QoS suggestion [7:60994]
Do you have experience with LLQ and MSFC that you can share? I configured LLQ but it seems packets are not going to the priority queue: class-map match-all Priority-Queue match access-group name TV ! policy-map Policy class Priority-Queue priority 200 class class-default random-detect fair-queue ! interface ATM6/0/0.213 point-to-point bandwidth 1 ip address 192.168.255.177 255.255.255.252 ip pim version 1 ip pim sparse-dense-mode ip ospf cost 8 atm pvc 100 1 201 aal5snap service-policy output Policy ! ip access-list extended TV permit udp host 1.1.1.1 host 239.192.10.22 eq 6 router#sh policy-map int atm 6/0/0.213 output ATM6/0/0.213 service-policy output: Policy queue stats for all priority classes: queue size 0, queue limit 50 packets output 0, packet drops 0 tail/random drops 0, no buffer drops 0, other drops 0 class-map: Priority-Queue (match-all) 0 packets, 0 bytes 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps match: access-group name TV 0 packets, 0 bytes 5 minute rate 0 bps Priority: kbps 200, burst bytes 5000, b/w exceed drops: 0 class-map: class-default (match-any) 474896 packets, 516105147 bytes 5 minute offered rate 1623000 bps, drop rate 0 bps match: any 474896 packets, 516105147 bytes 5 minute rate 1623000 bps queue size 0, queue limit 5838 packets output 477559, packet drops 4 tail/random drops 0, no buffer drops 0, other drops 4 random-detect: Exp-weight-constant: 9 (1/512) Mean queue depth: 0 Class Random Tail Minimum Maximum Mark Output drop drop threshold threshold probability packets 0 0 0 1459 2919 1/10 429315 1 0 0 1641 2919 1/100 2 0 0 1823 2919 1/100 3 0 0 2006 2919 1/100 4 0 0 2188 2919 1/100 5 0 0 2370 2919 1/1048467 6 0 0 2553 2919 1/100 7 0 0 2735 2919 1/100 fair-queue: per-flow queue limit 1459 Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=61029&t=60994 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: QoS suggestion [7:60994]
i don't see any obvious problems with your configuration. I can, however,
offer a couple of troubleshooting tips. I would start by checking out the
access list ("show access-list") to make sure you have packets that qualify.
Second (and this is where I think your problem is), I would lose the
"match-all" in your class-map. Since you're only searching one criterion,
there's no need for the match-all (which is the default match clause
anyways). Here's a quote from Cisco's web site to confirm:
"The match all and match any options need to be specified only if more than
one match criterion is configured in the traffic class. The class-map
match-all command is used when all of the match criteria in the traffic
class must be met in order for a packet to match the specified traffic
class. The class-map match-any command is used when only one of the match
criterion in the traffic class must be met in order for a packet to match
the specified traffic class. If neither the match-all nor match-any keyword
is specified, the traffic class will behave in a manner consistent with
class-map match-all command"
Let me know what you find out. Hope this helps
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=61030&t=60994
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: QoS suggestion [7:60994]
Hi, I have the following testing setup but it looks like the LLQ does not work. Can you have a look on it? When the 256k link was congested. Why I ping the prec. 5 packet behind the 256k line it only have the same response time with default ping? 128k--- FR 256k Attached 256k router configuration below. class-map match-all voice-traffic match ip precedence 5 ! policy-map voice-policy class voice-traffic priority percent 75 class class-default fair-queue interface Serial0 bandwidth 256 no ip address encapsulation frame-relay IETF load-interval 30 no fair-queue frame-relay traffic-shaping frame-relay lmi-type ansi ! interface Serial0.10 point-to-point bandwidth 256 ip address 10.114.0.6 255.255.255.252 frame-relay interface-dlci 100 class llq ! map-class frame-relay llq frame-relay cir 256000 frame-relay bc 2560 frame-relay be 0 frame-relay mincir 256000 service-policy output voice-policy TIA rgds, ivan Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=61074&t=60994 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
