[c-nsp] Sharing a shaping policy?

[Joost Pijnaker]

Hi,

Tunneling is your friend in this case. You can set the shaper on the
shared outside interface while seperating the L3 traffic with this
tunnel and terminating the tunnel interface inside the VRF.

HTH

CiscoNSP List schreef op 4-7-2014 2:14:
> Hi,
>
>
>  
>
> We purchase tails from a carrier that requires very specific
> shaping to be applied for the service to work optimally.
>
>
>  
>
> We have a client that is getting a 50Mb service at two sites
> with two vlans via this carrier - both sites links come into an AGG(Trunk port,
> with vlan per customer tail) on one of our edge switches.
>
>  
>
>
> Typically setup would be that we would shape @ 50Mb egress
> on an ME3400(Customers site) to carriers NTU, and then shape at 50Mb egress on
> our PE router for the customers L3 Int.
>
>
>  
>
> But in this instance, the customer has 2 vlans at each site
> (Carrier does not police the vlans subscribed bandwidth separately, it is a
> 50Mb service) - They want one of the vlans to be trunked between the two sites (So L2), and the other
> vlan to be L3(Placed in VRF), but they want both vlans to "share" the
> 50Mb.
>
>
>  
>
> Is there any way to do this? Or is it simply telling the
> customer, it cant be done, and you have to specify the bandwidth allocation for
> each vlan?
>
>
>  
>
> i.e.
>
>
>  
>
> Shaping egress from customers site on ME3400's @ 50Mb is
> fine, but egress from our PE + switch is not...i.e. If we shape L3 to 50M for
> vlan 10, and then shape L2 to 50M for vlan  20, we oversubscribe
> the link.
>
>  
>
>  
>
> The carriers AGG port has multiple other customers(vlans),
> and is only a 3560 (So minimal QOS capabilities)....Would something like an
> ME3600 provide additional flexibility to shape at the vlan level egress?  i.e. Carrier AGG moved to an ME3600, shaping
> policy that matches the two vlans, but I need the 2 vlans to "share"
> the 50M shaping policy?
>
>  
>
>  
>
> I dont want to apply the shaping policy to the carrier AGG
> interface, as it would become extremely complex if other customers want this
> type of "service" (And Im sure there are limitations to the number of hierarchy "levels" permitted)
>
>
>  
>
> Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.
>
>
>  
>
> Cheers.
>
>  
>
>   		 	   		  
> _______________________________________________
> 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/