[c-nsp] QoS and VLAN

Wed Apr 29 15:09:41 EDT 2009

Thanks Steve, after seeing your example, I found this

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/partner/tech/tk543/tk545/technologies_tech_note09186a0080114326.shtml

Would it work on inbound traffic?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Steve McCrory
<SteveMc at netservicesplc.com> wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> Here's an example of a nested policy that we have deployed on 7206VXR
> (NPE400):
>
> policy-map cust_4Mbvoip_parent
>  class class-default
>    shape average 4000000
>   service-policy cust-4Mvoip-out
> !
> policy-map cust-4Mvoip-out
>  class cust-rtp
>    priority percent 28
>  class cust-skinny
>    bandwidth percent 17
>  class cust-citrix-new
>    bandwidth percent 45
>  class cust-network
>    bandwidth percent 2
>  class class-default
>    fair-queue
> !
> interface GigabitEthernet1/0.230
>  description Southampton 10Mb
>  encapsulation dot1Q 230
>  ip vrf forwarding TU-MZRS-01
>  ip address 192.168.1.89 255.255.255.248
>  ip verify unicast source reachable-via any
>  no ip redirects
>  no ip proxy-arp
>  no snmp trap link-status
>  service-policy output cust_4Mbvoip_parent
> end
>
> This seems to work quite well and helped to alleviate congestion
> problems that our customer was having after they rolled out VoIP across
> their network.
>
> Steven
>
> Steven McCrory
>
> Senior Network Engineer
>
> Netservices PLC
> Waters Edge Business Park
> Modwen Road
> Manchester, M5 3EZ
>
> www.netservicesplc.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Church, Charles [mailto:cchurc05 at harris.com]
> Sent: 29 April 2009 18:15
> To: Steve McCrory; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: RE: [c-nsp] QoS and VLAN
>
> Steve,
>
>        You have an example of this?  I've found on the platforms I work
> on most that you can't use any LLQ (priority keyword) on a subint.  So
> I've put a policy handling the priority stuff on the main int, and then
> the other shaping/policing stuff on the subint, but have always
> questioned its effectiveness, or the order of operation for traffic,
> whether it hits the subint policy first, or the main int one.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chuck
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Steve McCrory
> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:40 PM
> To: Jay Nakamura; cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] QoS and VLAN
>
>
> Have you tried implementing Modular QoS CLI (MQC) using service
> policies?
>
> I haven't worked on the 7500 platform but we have successfully applied
> QoS for VoIP on subinterfaces on the 7200 series routers.
>
> It should be noted that on sub-interfaces, you need a parent service
> policy to shape traffic to a particular level and then a child service
> policy which will carry out the actual QoS markings/prioritizations
> within the shaped allowance.
>
> Steven
>
> Steven McCrory
>
> Senior Network Engineer
>
> Netservices PLC
> Waters Edge Business Park
> Modwen Road
> Manchester, M5 3EZ
>
> www.netservicesplc.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Jay Nakamura
> Sent: 29 April 2009 16:36
> To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: [c-nsp] QoS and VLAN
>
> We have several customers coming in on Ethernet.  They are connected
> to L2 switch and trunked into a 7500 router via VLAN.  This has worked
> fine so far with the use of rate-limit on the sub-interface.  Most
> customers have 5~10mbps.
>
> However, we are increasingly needing QoS so VoIP traffic does not drop
> when data traffic bursts.  Only work around I know how to do is to
> give separate rate-limit based on IP address since most of the time
> VoIP has separate gateway on the customer side than the data firewall.
>
> Classification of the traffic is not a problem.  The issue is, how do
> you give VoIP traffic priority over data traffic on a Ethernet
> sub-interface?
>
> Is there a good way to implement this on a 7500?  If not, what Cisco
> hardware will work?  We are on a tight budget and the number of
> clients are small.  (dozen or so)  Would going with L3 switch be
> better?  If so, what model?
>
> Thanks!
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
> --------
> NetServices plc, Company No. 4178393,
> Registered Office: NetServices House, 31 Modwen Road,
> Waters Edge Business Park, SALFORD, M5 3EZ
> --------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
> --------
> NetServices plc, Company No. 4178393,
> Registered Office: NetServices House, 31 Modwen Road,
> Waters Edge Business Park, SALFORD, M5 3EZ
> --------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>