[j-nsp] Class of Service implementation over MLPPP link
Josef Buchsteiner
josefb at juniper.net
Wed Apr 18 03:30:54 EDT 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007, 7:47:11 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> Dear Josef
>>
>> Thanks for your valuable information, and yes you got right....i was
>> checking on interface extensive, which not showing any Q stats...while on
>> *sh interface queue, *the packets are actually going to those specific
>> queue.
>>
>> Kindly can you explain this is little bit detail...as i cant get it
>> clearly.....
>> " On the egress interface we have to put all into Q0 since you
>> are not using multiclass mlppp and we have only one SEQ pool
>> so we will end up all in one queue to prevent re-order. The queuing is
>> done in LSQ prior to putting on the seq stamps."
>>
>> What is the significance of MultiClass MLPPP,
one of the main driver for multiclass is that you can load-share
different class of mlppp traffic across the bundles. Without this
you can only load-share *one* mlppp class and LFI traffic needs to
be hashed on *one* single member link to avoid re-ordering.
>> cant i get the
>> Gold/Silver/BE/NC traffic with out configuring this parameter?
which you have already at the LSQ level. Don't think about the
queue on the PIC. Just see the egress interface as one FIFO
and traffic is already arriving at the scheduler you have defined.
We should not see queuing on the egress PIC and if it does because
the line has errors then you will drop but only for queue 0. If you
would send the ml traffic with one seq# pool into different egress
queues and you start dropping them according to the scheduler you
have applied to the LSQ interface we will get massive re-order and
huge jitter sine the remote side is waiting for the frames for a
certain period of time.
The scheduler according to your configuration is applied already
*before* the ML Sequence stamps is build which is the right thing
to do. Never but ML traffic which has one seq# pool into different
queues.
>>
>> Also while checking on consituent link stats (sh interface extensive or sh
>> interface queue) both shows the packets are going through BE queue, where as
>> at lsq level they are flowing through Gold or Silver.
which is correct. you have done queuing/shaping/scheduler actions
already at lsq level.
Josef
>>
>> Can you provide this information.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Fahad
>>
>>
>> On 4/18/07, Josef Buchsteiner <josefb at juniper.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > Fahad,
>> >
>> > the behavior you see is normal and expected.
>> >
>> >
>> > First to see the queue statistic on LSQ interface you most
>> > likely forgot to add the subunit number as the interface
>> > queue number will be zero all the time since this is the
>> > entire LSQ interfaces. That's the reason why you configure
>> > per-unit-scheduler on the LSQ interface.
>> >
>> > On the egress interface we have to put all into Q0 since you
>> > are not using multiclass mlppp and we have only one SEQ pool
>> > so we will end up all in one queue to prevent re-order. The
>> > queuing is done in LSQ prior to putting on the seq stamps.
>> >
>> > We do recommend once there is LFI traffic to configure
>> > scheduler on the egress PIC to make sure it gets the right
>> > priority and served prior to the ML packets and the
>> > interleaving is done there. So with LFI traffic and the
>> > fragmentation-map it would then go into a different egress PIC
>> > queue. If you use ML-MLPPP you will then see all going in
>> > different egress queues.
>> >
>> >
>> > However the point is that queuing is done on LSQ. So your
>> > configuration is ok and most likely all is working correctly.
>> > Just check if you get the LSQ queue number
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > <-- example like this, please check on your side
>> >
>> > josefb at minsk# run show interfaces queue lsq-1/2/0.0
>> > Logical interface lsq-1/2/0.0 (Index 76) (SNMP ifIndex 65)
>> > Forwarding classes: 4 supported, 4 in use
>> > Egress queues: 4 supported, 4 in use
>> > Burst size: 0
>> > Queue: 0, Forwarding classes: best-effort
>> > Queued:
>> > Packets : 113479 166
>> > pps
>> >
>>
More information about the juniper-nsp
mailing list