[c-nsp] QoS over two T1's

[Cheung, Rick]

	Rodney, are there other considerations when bandwidth limiting a
class of traffic with an MLPPP bundle? I'd like to cap web conferencing
traffic at 300kbps on a MLPPP bundle with 2 point to point T1s. I've
configured a bandwidth statement of 300kbps, and policing at 300kbps for
that class. However, from packet captures and traffic graphs, I only
realize about 160kbps utilization, and TCP complains of packets being
out of order.



Thanks,
Rick Cheung

-----Original Message-----
From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
[mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Rodney Dunn
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 2:09 PM
To: Voll, Scott
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] QoS over two T1's

You should put the T1's in a MLPPP bundle and
apply the service policy to the MLPPP bundle
interface.

That should work for you.

If you know how much traffic you need to
reserve for the application classify the
traffic and for that class give it a bandwidth
that will cover it.

That should give you packets that are always
delivered in order and also guaranteed bw
for that class.  Let all your other traffic
fall in the default class.

Rodney


On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 10:17:11AM -0800, Voll, Scott wrote:
> Background
>
> 
>
> Customer runs two t1's from us to them.  Load balanced via EIGRP.
They
> use a third party application that is very slow.  So we did some
testing
> and put all the regular internet traffic over one t1 and the third
party
> application over the other t1.  This has greatly increased there
speed.
> But this application is only using about 300k of bandwidth.
>
> 
>
> What I would like to do:
>
> 
>
> I would like to go back to load balancing the two t1's and prioritize
> the traffic so the 3rd party app. Gets the bandwidth it needs but get
> back some of there bandwidth for regular internet traffic.
>
> 
>
> I've setup QoS before but i have not had to load balance while
> prioritizing.  Any suggestions.
>
> 
>
> I'm thinking I match the traffic with an ACL, use a class-map to match
> it, and apply to the Policy map.  Then apply to the two serial
> interfaces and continue to use EIGRP for load balancing?  Does this
> sound right?
>
> 
>
> Or
>
> 
>
> Do I use a route-map to keep all the 3rd party app going down one t1
and
> mark it, match it with class-map, apply to policy map and then only
> apply to the one serial interface?
>
> 
>
> In the midst of Policy maps, being this is data and not voice should I
> Priortize or use bandwidth?  With out fail I need to make sure this
> traffic gets the bandwidth it needs. But would also like to use the
> bandwidth for internet traffic if not used.
>
> 
>
> TIA
>
> 
>
> Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
_______________________________________________
cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/

This message, including any attachments, contains confidential information intended for a specific
individual and purpose and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact
sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all copies.
You are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking
of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.

WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The recipient should check this email
and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The sender accepts no liability for any damage
caused by any virus transmitted by this email. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed
to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive
late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors
or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.