[cisco-bba] To Shape or Police DSL Subscribers ??
Arie Vayner
ariev at vayner.net
Thu Feb 17 08:34:00 EST 2011
Gerald,
If I am not wrong, the issue is the "percent" value you are using... percent
has to be applied in your case with a parent shaper, which would define the
100% pipe...
Change the percent to an absolute value, and it should work just fine.
Arie
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Gerald Krause <gk at ax.tc> wrote:
> Sorry for dig out this old thread but I'am in the process to test some
> QoS features on our LNS and stumbled upon this post :-).
>
> My question - what IOS version support such QoS policies to be applied
> to individual users/sessions from RADIUS on a NPE-G2 LNS and what is the
> difference between this 2 features:
>
> 1) "QoS: Per-Session Shaping and Queuing on LNS "
> Cisco FN: supported in 12.2SB but not in 12.2SRE
>
> 2) "Per-User QoS via AAA Policy Name"
> Cisco FN: supported in 12.2SB and 12.2SRE
>
> We have just moved from 12.2SB to 12.2SRE on our NPE-G2 LNS for some
> reasons and it seems that this version does not support that kind of
> configuration. I've tried some simple configurations like the originator
> of this thread has done and I see that config and the RADIUS attr's will
> be 'accepted' from the LNS but the policy configured in the user profile
> will be not 'applied' to the Virtual-Interface of the session/user:
>
>
> ------8<-------
>
> LNS Config
> ==========
> !
> policy-map STCR-ADSL-3M
> class class-default
> police rate percent 10
> !
>
> RADIUS Config
> =============
> xxx-gktest2 Password:="testtest"
> Framed-Route="1.2.3.4",
> Cisco-AVPair+="lcp:interface-config=service-policy output
> STCR-ADSL-3M"
>
>
> DEBUG
> =====
>
> LNS Debug Log:
> 1375621: Feb 16 18:26:08.041: RADIUS: 1812, Access-Accept, len 106
> 1375623: Feb 16 18:26:08.041: RADIUS: Vendor, Cisco [26] 63
> 1375624: Feb 16 18:26:08.041: RADIUS: Cisco AVpair [1] 57
> "lcp:interface-config=service-policy output STCR-ADSL-3M"
> 1375625: Feb 16 18:26:08.041: RADIUS: Framed-IP-Address [8] 6
> 1.2.3.4
> ...
> 1375675: Feb 16 18:26:08.045: SSS PM [uid:85][184D0B28]: RULE: VRF
> Parsing routine:
> 1375676: interface-config "service-policy output STCR-ADSL-3M"
> 1375677: addr 1.2.3.4
> 1375679: Feb 16 18:26:08.045: SSS PM: Multihop disabled
> 1375680: Feb 16 18:26:08.045: SSS AAA AUTHOR [uid:85]: SIP PPP[13C0894]
> parsed as Success
> ...
> 1375715: Feb 16 18:26:08.053: AAA/BIND(0000691E): Bind i/f Virtual-Access46
> 1375774: Feb 16 18:26:08.261: Vi46 IPCP: State is Open
> 1375775: Feb 16 18:26:08.261: AAA/AUTHOR: Processing PerUser AV route
> 1375776: Feb 16 18:26:08.261: Vi46 Added to neighbor route AVL tree:
> topoid 0, address 1.2.3.4
> 1375777: Feb 16 18:26:08.261: Vi46 IPCP: Install route to 1.2.3.4
>
>
> LNS#sh policy-map
>
> Policy Map STCR-ADSL-3M
> Class class-default
> police rate percent 10
> conform-action transmit
> exceed-action drop
>
> LNS#show subscriber sess | inc test
> 85 Vi46 authen Local Term xxx-gktest 00:48:44
> LNS#show policy-map session uid 85
> LNS#
>
> LNS#sh user wi | inc test
> Vi46 xxx-gktest2
> LNS#sh run int virtual-access 46
> !
> interface Virtual-Access46
> ip mtu 1452
> ip verify unicast reverse-path
> ip tcp adjust-mss 1412
> no logging event link-status
> no snmp trap link-status
> end
> LNS#show policy-map interface virtual-access 46
> LNS#
>
> ------8<-------
>
>
> --
> Gerald
>
> Am 07.09.2009 08:41, schrieb Andy Saykao:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Is it better to shape or police DSL subscribers that have exceeded their
> > quota or does it not matter which method you choose? We are currently
> > using CoA with policing but I've been asked to investigate whether we
> > should look at shaping instead of policing. My testing reveals that
> > policing is more bursty as seen below.
> >
> > *** Example with Policing ***
> >
> > policy-map POLICE-TEST
> > class class-default
> > police 48000 9000 18000 conform-action transmit exceed-action
> > drop violate-action drop
> >
> > Using: cisco-avpair = "ip:sub-qos-policy-out=POLICE-TEST"
> >
> > Download speeds fluctuate between 5.2 - 7.6KB/sec. More bursty.
> >
> > *** Example with Shaping ***
> >
> > policy-map SHAPE-TEST
> > class class-default
> > shape average 48000
> > Using: cisco-avpair = "ip:sub-qos-policy-out=SHAPE-TEST"
> >
> > Download speeds remain at constant 5.6KB/sec. Very little bursting.
> >
> > Any pro's and con's to either method???
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> > This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> > intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
> > addressed. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have
> > received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system.
> > Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are
> > solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the
> > organisation. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any
> > attachments for the presence of viruses. The organisation accepts no
> > liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cisco-bba mailing list
> > cisco-bba at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-bba mailing list
> cisco-bba at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-bba/attachments/20110217/ad2f34cb/attachment.html>
More information about the cisco-bba
mailing list