[j-nsp] M7i qos question.

[Erdem Sener]

Hi,

 Also, keep in mind that ordinary FE ports don't support
per-unit-scheduling (they're not IQ PIC's). If you're going to work
with multiple units under single FE interface and think you'll going
to need different schedulers for them, you might want to look for some
GE-IQ PIC.



On 9/6/06, Harry Reynolds <harry at juniper.net> wrote:
> Correction on the input classifier advice.
>
> Rather than use a compatible default input classifier, which could map
> traffic to multiple FCs, you should define a custom input classifier
> that classifiers into the BE and NC FCs only. This way you do not need
> to define schedulers to service the AF/EF queues, because all traffic
> will be in either BE or NC queue, which has a default 95/5% scheduler.
>
> HTHs
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> > [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
> > Harry Reynolds
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 7:59 AM
> > To: Szilard Matyas; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] M7i qos question.
> >
> > If you want all egress traffic to bear the same tos marking
> > then it seems you could just apply a custom rewrite rule to
> > the desired egress interface to maps all traffic classes
> > (only two will be defined by
> > default) to the desired rewrite pattern. I would be concerned
> > that the resulting homogeny may lead to stability issues
> > should network control get trashed when users are active, and
> > highly recommend that you *not* remark the NC traffic in
> > queue 3. This would yield two or three possible markings for
> > traffic leaving the desired egress interfaces; bearer traffic
> > and NC with optional low/high drop probability marking.
> >
> > This approach does not require any input firewall filters for
> > MF classification, but assumes ingress NC is marked in
> > accordance with the input classifier. You need to ensure that
> > a compatible input classifier is in effect on all ingress
> > interfaces, especially if you are trying to preserve NC as a
> > separate FC. If not mistaken the default classifier is for IP
> > precedence with ieee802 bits ignored. To support ieee802 or
> > dscp marking I believe you will need to apply a default
> > ieee/dscp classifier to all ingress interfaces as well.
> >
> > Something like this for ieee:
> >
> >
> > [edit]
> > harry at vpn03# show class-of-service
> > interfaces {
> >     fe-1/1/3 {
> >         unit 0 {
> >             rewrite-rules {
> >                 ieee-802.1 test; <<< for all (ethernet)
> > egress interfaces
> >             }
> >         }
> >     }
> >     fe-1/1/1 {
> >         unit 0 {
> >             classifiers {
> >                 ieee-802.1 default; <<< for all (ethernet)
> > ingress interfaces
> >             }
> >         }
> >     }
> > }
> > rewrite-rules {
> >     ieee-802.1 test {
> >         forwarding-class assured-forwarding {
> >             loss-priority low code-point 011;
> >             loss-priority high code-point 011;
> >         }
> >         forwarding-class best-effort {
> >             loss-priority low code-point 011;
> >             loss-priority high code-point 011;
> >         }
> >         forwarding-class expedited-forwarding {
> >             loss-priority low code-point 011;
> >             loss-priority high code-point 011;
> >         }
> >         forwarding-class network-control {
> >             loss-priority low code-point 110;
> >             loss-priority high code-point 111;
> >         }
> >     }
> > }
> >
> >
> > HTHs
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> > > [mailto:juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of
> > > Szilard Matyas
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 5:43 AM
> > > To: juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > Subject: [j-nsp] M7i qos question.
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > >   I would like to set the dscp or ieee802.1 cos for all
> > > packets that leave an interface.
> > >   In the documentation I have seen that packet rewrite has
> > > been  based on forwarding classes. I think it is bit complex
> > > solution for our simple issue.
> > >   Because I have to create a firewall policy matching packets
> > > based on some criteria, have to assign these packets to a
> > > forwarding class.  Then I have to apply this policy to any
> > > input interface(vlan), because packets could come from many
> > > sources, and I have to make the rewrite rule based on
> > > forwarding classes.
> > >   Could somebody know a simple solution to rewrite every
> > > packet the leave an interface with a dscp or cos value ?
> > >
> > >   Regards,
> > >
> > >   szicsu
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > >  Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> juniper-nsp mailing list juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/juniper-nsp
>


-- 
Erdem