[j-nsp] Class of Service implementation over MLPPP link

[FAHAD ALI KHAN]

One more question related to Multicalss MLPPP. Suppose if my scenario is
something like following,

PE1 ========= PE2 ========PE3
                            ||
                            ||
                           PE4

In this case, PE2 has total three MLPPP bundles, one with each PE1, PE3 and
PE4 respectively. Now in this case do my previous configuration works for
all or do i have to configure Multiclass MLPPP on PE2 to support multiple
class flows on different bundles.

I think multiclass will not required, my current configuration will work for
the other two. Just need to know your comments.

Regards

Fahad


On 4/18/07, Josef Buchsteiner <josefb at juniper.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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
> >> >
> >>
>
>
>