[c-nsp] ASR1000 and QOS

[Marco Marzetti]

Il giorno mer, 22/08/2012 alle 14.23 +0000, Brian Turnbow ha scritto:

> Hello Everyone,
> 
> I am trying to realize a qos configuration on an asr 1006 for pppoe services being sold by our national incumbent.
> On a single GE interface I will receive two classes of services, cos 0 and cos 1,  each with a set bandwidth. i.e. cos 0 100mbps cos 1 20mbps.
> Each dslam gets terminated using a vlan for each cos , so in the end I will have n vlans for the cos 0 traffic and x vlans for the cos 1 traffic.
> Things gets complicated though as we want to assign a policy to the pppoe sessions as well, as we will have varying line rates on the customer lines.
> Ideally I would like to be able to shape the n vlans to the cos 0 rate and the x vlans to the cos 1 rate,
> and then be able to shape the single sessions as each will have a different line rate.
> 
> I have tried
> 
> 1) with the SE following us (on vacation now since we need him)  we thought that service policy aggregation would be the way to go.
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/qos/configuration/guide/qos_policies_agg.html
> but when we assign the end user policy via radius it does not get applied and we have the error
> policy TEST with fragment class can only be attached to ethernet subifc and port-channel subifc
> Tinkered awhile with various configs but no go lets try something else..
> 
> 2) setting up a policy on the GE that shapes on match vlans , and sending service policy for the users via radius.
> error message
> service-policy with queueing features on sessions is not allowed in conjunction with interface based
> and the policy is not applied
> bummer....
> I am thinking about trying to declare the interface bandwidth via radius and then use bandwidth % instead of shape but that should be queueing as well and also the scaling documents for the asr have big warnings on the use of lcp:interface-config ...
> 
> 
> So here I am looking for a way to do this....
> 
> The only other thing that comes to mind is placing a box before the asr to shape the vlans and just work on the sessions on the asr, but that means another box to purchase, maintain, etc etc.
> 
> If you've made it this far (sorry about the length)
> Has anyone done something similar, or have any suggestions ?
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> 
> Brian


Hello Brian,

We faced the same problem ( and, i bet, the same incumbent too ) earlier
in the summer.
We got out of it by placing an old Catalyst switch between the incumbent
and our BRAS.

Regards

Marco