<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Hi Rick,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The bandwidth shaping values on redback pwfq are in my experience extremely accurate if you measure them with an ixia or similar. But it may indeed depend on what level you’ve applied the policy as to which overheads are counting and which aren’t.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>If you are looking to match only l2tp traffic on that port (because there is other significant traffic) then you should be able to use a metering policy with an acl to match the l2tp, classify your l2tp traffic with that, then push it into a (set of) queue(s) that you want to shape.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>It’s not doing DPI (there was the ASE blade, but I guess you don’t have one of those) it should just be down to what level of circuit you’ve applied the policy to as to whether its working on subscriber level or tunnel-transport level.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>This is a tad complex for mailing list……as I mentioned the other day, I am a freelance consultant, you can hire me by the day </span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D'>J</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>cheers<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Ian<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Richard Clayton [mailto:sledge121@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> 12 January 2011 22:13<br><b>To:</b> Ian Calderbank<br><b>Cc:</b> redback-nsp@puck.nether.net<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [rbak-nsp] qos queuing with L2TP tunnels<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Ian<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>It was the aggregate on the circuit towards the lac I wanted to pwfq, I remember when I tried to do this on Cisco I could never match traffic that was l2tp encapsulated, we ended up l2tp tunnel switching the traffic to another lns and shaping the whole tunnel, one of my <span style='background:white'>colleagues has a working redback pwfq policy but the bandwidth shaping values don't exactly match reality, the difference appears to be the overhead of the l2tp etc. How does the redback Qos inside l2tp, does it match before encapsulation or is it doing some type of dpi.</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='background:white'>Thanks</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='background:white'>Rick</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>On 10 January 2011 10:22, Ian Calderbank <<a href="mailto:ian@calderbankconsulting.co.uk">ian@calderbankconsulting.co.uk</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>------------------------------<br><br>Message: 5<br>Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 10:03:28 +0000<br>From: Richard Clayton <<a href="mailto:sledge121@gmail.com">sledge121@gmail.com</a>><br>To: <a href="mailto:redback-nsp@puck.nether.net">redback-nsp@puck.nether.net</a><br>Subject: [rbak-nsp] qos queuing with L2TP tunnels<br>Message-ID:<br> <<a href="mailto:AANLkTinqFF4Bj9GKMV_jkujRruqYv41MC9bPABzaQQym@mail.gmail.com">AANLkTinqFF4Bj9GKMV_jkujRruqYv41MC9bPABzaQQym@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>> Is it possible to perform outbound qos queuing on traffic that is<br>encapsulated within L2TP.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>yes<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>>If it is possible then how is it done as I assume queuing happens after<br>L2TP encapsulation.<br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal>Just apply pwfq policy to the subscriber if you want per-subscriber queuing.<br>Be careful that the line card / EPPA that has the circuit for the subscriber<br>and that which has the circuit for the l2tp tunnel are the same otherwise<br>PWFQ won't work . I see you are discussing this with david already.<br><br>If you want to apply qos to the aggregate traffic as well / instead, you can<br>also apply pwfq to the egress circuit to the lac. If you try to do _both_<br>(subscriber and aggregate), be careful. There's no H-Qos for l2tp lns.<br><br>ta<br>Ian<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>redback-nsp mailing list<br><a href="mailto:redback-nsp@puck.nether.net">redback-nsp@puck.nether.net</a><br><a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/redback-nsp" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/redback-nsp</a><o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>