[c-nsp] QoS over two T1's

[Rodney Dunn]

Wha tplatform?
What code?

Can I see the configuration and also a couple
snapshots of:

sh policy-map interface multilink <name>

while the transfer is going.

Rodney

On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:18:43PM -0600, Cheung, Rick wrote:
> 
> 	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.