[c-nsp] LLQ not utilizing reserved bandwidth & packet drops in Nested policy-map (2 level hierarchial policymap)
Arun Kumar
narain.arun at gmail.com
Mon Feb 24 02:37:07 EST 2014
Hi Velimir - Please find the full configuration of ACL, Class map and
policy map
C2800-R6-CPE1#sh class-map
Class Map match-all EF (id 1)
Match access-group name EF
Class Map match-all DATA1 (id 2)
Match access-group name DATA1
Class Map match-all DATA2 (id 3)
Match access-group name DATA2
Class Map match-all DATA3 (id 4)
Match access-group name DATA3
Class Map match-all DATA4 (id 5)
Match access-group name DATA4
Class Map match-any class-default (id 0)
Match any
C2800-R6-CPE1#sh ip acce
C2800-R6-CPE1#sh ip access-lists
Extended IP access list DATA1
10 permit ip any host 172.9.0.10 (56100 matches)
Extended IP access list DATA2
10 permit ip any host 10.20.0.10 (18579 matches)
Extended IP access list DATA3
10 permit ip any host 124.7.227.17
Extended IP access list DATA4
10 permit ip any host 124.7.227.19
Extended IP access list EF
10 permit ip host 10.10.1.2 host 119.227.3.159 (125370 matches)
C2800-R6-CPE1#
C2800-R6-CPE1#sh policy-map child-out1
Policy Map child-out1
Class EF
priority 50 (%) 16000
Class DATA1
bandwidth 20 (%)
Class DATA2
bandwidth 10 (%)
Class DATA3
bandwidth 10 (%)
C2800-R6-CPE1#
C2800-R6-CPE1#sh policy-map parent-out
Policy Map parent-out
Class class-default
Average Rate Traffic Shaping
cir 128000 (bps)
service-policy child-out1
Service-policy output: parent-out
Class-map: class-default (match-any)
199999 packets, 45317308 bytes
30 second offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
Match: any
Queueing
queue limit 64 packets
(queue depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/2631/0
(pkts output/bytes output) 197368/47497736
shape (average) cir 128000, bc 512, be 512
target shape rate 128000
Service-policy : child-out1
queue stats for all priority classes:
Queueing
queue limit 64 packets
(queue depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 0/2631/0
(pkts output/bytes output) 122667/19466406
Class-map: EF (match-all)
125298 packets, 18630200 bytes
30 second offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
Match: access-group name EF
Priority: 50% (64 kbps), burst bytes 19200, b/w exceed drops: 2631
The router uses the "shape average CIR" value used in parent policy map
when percentage is used in child policy map. Please see the above output
where in class-map EF has 64kbps when 50% of parent CIR 128Kbps is
configured. Tried changing the bandwidth command under the interface to
128K but still the issue persists.
Hi Jeya - The issue is LLQ should be able to burst till 64kbps during no
congestion which is not happening with default burst size of 1600 bytes
(200ms). Only when the burst size is changed to 16000bytes (2s), i am able
to burst till 64Kbps.
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:44 PM, Jeyamurali Sivapathasundaram <
sjeyamurali at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Arun
>
> When no congestion, you can use more than 16K for LLQ or any of the other
> classes. This is default behaviour.
>
> Jey
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 2:27 PM, Arun Kumar <narain.arun at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think this issue is quite old but I could not get any conclusive
>> explanation.
>>
>> Below is the configuration:
>>
>> C2800-R6-CPE1#sh policy-map parent-out
>>
>> Policy Map parent-out
>>
>> Class class-default
>>
>> Average Rate Traffic Shaping
>>
>> cir 128000 (bps)
>>
>> service-policy child-out1
>>
>> C2800-R6-CPE1#sh policy-map child-out1
>>
>> Policy Map child-out1
>>
>> Class EF
>>
>> priority 50 (%) 16000
>>
>> Class DATA1
>>
>> bandwidth 20 (%)
>>
>> Class DATA2
>>
>> bandwidth 10 (%)
>>
>> Class DATA3
>>
>> bandwidth 10 (%)
>>
>> C2800-R6-CPE1#
>>
>>
>>
>> In the above configuration, parent policy has 128Kbps and Child has 4
>> Classes with Class EF is LLQ with priority of 50% bandwidth (burst size is
>> default 1600bytes), class DATA1 with 20%, class DATA2 with 10% and class
>> DATA3 with 10%.
>>
>>
>> With the above configuration, I could not able to push beyond 16Kbps of
>> traffic on class EF (LLQ). When the burst size is increased to 16000
>> bytes,
>> I am able to push around 60Kbps.
>>
>>
>> Wanted to understand this is the expected behavior of LLQ in Nested policy
>> map or I am missing something.
>>
>>
>> thanks in advance
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Jey S.
> Network Engineer
> London
>
>
More information about the cisco-nsp
mailing list