[c-nsp] QoS on dual T1s ok?

[Jose]

The customer hasn't specifically mentioned that this will be for Voice 
traffic but more to give priority to certain machines over others no 
matter what kind of traffic is going through.

Jose

Jessup, Toby wrote:
> Per-flow forwarding is better for VoIP/video (less jitter). However, if
> you do per-flow be aware that some VoIP products (not Cisco) transmit
> all active calls within a single flow (IP address/port pair) between
> locations -- an "IP trunk"). This single large flow is then crammed
> through the 768k priority queue of only one T1.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Voll, Scott
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:45 AM
> To: Jose; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] QoS on dual T1s ok?
>
>
> Depends on the traffic.  Voice and Video don't do real well with per
> packet load balancing.  Other traffic shouldn't be bad.
>
> scott
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jose
> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 11:19 AM
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [c-nsp] QoS on dual T1s ok?
>
> Just wanted to get some added reassurance from you guys since I think 
> this will work but just wanted to make sure.
>
> Customer wants us to prioritize a specific /28 from his assigned blocks 
> across the two T1s he has from us.  He would like this block to be able 
> to use up to half of his bandwidth if needed and when the /28 is not 
> using any bandwidth, the other blocks on his network should have the 
> ability to use up to the full two T1s worth of bandwidth.
>
> Based on this request I created a policy map based on an access-list to 
> match any traffic on that specific block like this:
>
> access-list 120 permit ip any 10.0.0.16 0.0.0.15
> access-list 120 deny   ip any any
> !
> class-map match-any customer
>   match access-group 120
> !
> policy-map customer
>   class customer
>     priority 768
>   class class-default
>     fair-queue
>
> I then apply this policy map to each serial interface:
>
> interface Serial1/1/0:1
>  no ip directed-broadcast
>  ip load-sharing per-packet
>  no fair-queue
>  service-policy output customer
> !
> interface Serial1/1/1:1
>  no ip address
>  no ip directed-broadcast
>  ip load-sharing per-packet
>  no fair-queue
>  service-policy output customer
> !
>
> Does anyone see anything wrong with the way I set this up?  I assume 
> that per-packet load balancing won't throw anything off?
>
> Thanks for any feedback.
>
> Jose
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
>
>