[j-nsp] WAN input prioritization on MX

[Serge Vautour]

Humm. My understand, at least with the command sets I'm use to using, is that you do classification on ingress and then queuing and marking on egress. When you do classification, the packets are assigned to a  "Forwarding Class (FC)" inside the box. This makes sure the box gives those packets proper treatment inside the box and that the packets get assigned to the proper egress interface queue. While the packets exit the queue (based on egress schedulers), the packet QoS headers are remarked.

Basically, this diagram:

http://www.juniper.net/techpubs/images/g017213.gif

Packets travel through the box based on the outer boxes following the solid lines. The dotted lines all point to or from the FC to identify how the decision is made. 

Serge




________________________________
 From: Doug Hanks <dhanks at juniper.net>
To: Chris Evans <chrisccnpspam2 at gmail.com>; Gustavo Santos <gustkiller at gmail.com> 
Cc: "juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net" <juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net> 
Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:09:53 AM
Subject: Re: [j-nsp] WAN input prioritization on MX
 
How is this weird? You can mark on ingress, but the queuing happens on the
egress interface when it's to be transmitted.


On 10/13/12 6:07 AM, "Chris Evans" <chrisccnpspam2 at gmail.com> wrote:

>JUNOS does a weird way of marking packets.. It is done on the egress of
>the
>box, not on ingress (there is an exception in a few newer modules that can
>do this). So it is probably working as the other poster mentioned.  Make
>sure you take this methodology into consideration as it can hinder your
>granularity of CoS with marking vs passing through and
>you inadvertently remark traffic you didn't mean to.
>
>On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Gustavo Santos
><gustkiller at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Doug and Hanks @juniper. I had to left the office and leave
>>configuration
>> as is. On monday I will update you after verify what you have pointed,
>>
>> What I can tell is that I didn't have made any modification on the
>>systems
>> default class of service  / mapping configuration.
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>> Gustavo Santos
>> Analista de Redes
>> CCNA , MTCNA , MTCRE, MTCINE, JUNCIA-ER
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/10/13 Harry Reynolds <harry at juniper.net>
>>
>> > Doug raises some good points.
>> >
>> > Also, for testing, perhaps add some counters to the terms to aid in
>> > confirming matches. You may also want to show config | display
>> > detail/inheritance to see if the prefix list is expanding as you
>>expect.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net [mailto:
>> > juniper-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Doug Hanks
>> > Sent: Friday, October 12, 2012 9:36 PM
>> > To: Gustavo Santos; juniper-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> > Subject: Re: [j-nsp] WAN input prioritization on MX
>> >
>> > I'm sure it's working just fine. Are you checking the egress
>>interface to
>> > see if the traffic is being marked and queued properly? A common
>>mistake
>> is
>> > to check the ingress interface queues.
>> >
>> >
>> > If this doesn't work, we would need to see your entire
>>class-of-service
>> > configuration.
>> >
>> > On 10/12/12 6:04 PM, "Gustavo Santos" <gustkiller at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Hi,
>> > >
>> > >I'm new on Juniper class of service / shaping. I'm reading some tech
>> > >docs from Juniper and a Juniper's  MX book, but it's kind tricky.
>> > >Today I get asked to do a pretty simple configuration, but I tried
>>some
>> > >settings but none of then worked. Any of you guys can help me with
>>that?
>> > >
>> > >What I want to achieve is pretty (conceptualy speaking) simple.  I
>>have
>> > >a Gig interface and want to rate limit the interface at 500Mbits ,
>>mark
>> > >a destination subnet with expedited forwarding class, mark anything
>> > >else with best effort. I tried the config below but it's not working.
>> > >The rate-limit works but the prioritization isn't.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >gustavo at MX5-1> show configuration firewall family inet filter
>> > >wan-control physical-interface-filter; term high-priority {
>> > >    from {
>> > >        destination-prefix-list {
>> > >            high-priority-dst;
>> > >        }
>> > >    }
>> > >    then {
>> > >        policer limit500;
>> > >        loss-priority low;
>> > >        forwarding-class expedited-forwarding;
>> > >        }
>> > >}
>> > >term else {
>> > >    then {
>> > >        policer limit500;
>> > >        loss-priority high;
>> > >        forwarding-class best-effort
>> > >       }
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >( policer limit500)
>> > >physical-interface-policer;
>> > >if-exceeding {
>> > >    bandwidth-limit 480m;   (set the value lower to check policer
>> > >working..
>> > >but it wasn't as desired)
>> > >    burst-size-limit 625k;
>> > >}
>> > >then discard;
>> > >
>> > >then the filter was applied on the interface family inet filter input
>> > >wan-control
>> > >
>> > >Gustavo Santos
>> > >Analista de Redes
>> > >CCNA , MTCNA , MTCRE, MTCINE, JUNCIA-ER
>> > >_______________________________________________
>> > >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
>>
>_______________________________________________
>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