QoS Priority Percent

Hi All,
We are trying to create 3 QoS queues for a WAN circuit between a managed CE and the PE in our network.
Currently we have:
policy-map PM_WAN_OUT
class CM_VOICE
priority percent 30
set ip dscp ef
class CM_CRITICAL
bandwidth percent 30
set ip dscp af31
class class-default
bandwidth percent 40
set ip dscp 0
random-detect dscp-based
With the idea that VOIP and signalling has a LLQ of 30%, critical data has 30% and everything else has 40%.
We've done a little testing and can see that the LLQ gets 30% of the bandwidth, however, if there is no traffic in the LLQ, will the other queues be able to use that bandwidth? For example, if there were no voice calls, or critical data (queues 1 and 2) then the default class could have 100% of the bandwidth?
Also, is it best practice to map DSCP to EXP for transmission over our MPLS network, or use mls qos trust dscp instead?
Thanks for the help

Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
In answer to your first question, normally, "unused" class bandwidth is available to other classes. So, yes, also normally, the default class might use 100% of the bandwidth (if none is being used by other classes).

Similar Messages

SPA 2102 QOS priority

I have the SPA2102 configured as switch between my dsl modem/router and the rest of my network. I am wondering if set up like this it will still give priority of sip communication or if since it is only a switch and not a router I lose this function.
Peter van Hoof

I think you mean you've set the unit in bridge mode. In this case , it's acting as a passthrough and treated the same just as those devices connected on the network. You should be able to notice if there's a significant change on it's performance after setting it to bridge. You may set priority to voice on your network if your modem/router has QoS functionality on it.

QoS Priority in Nexus 55xx

Hi Everyone, just a little doubt
Which traffic has more priority in a Nexus 5500 Platform. FCoE in class-fcoe (CoS=3) or CoS =5 in a strict-priority queue ?
Thanks in Advanced
My Best Regards,
Andre Lomonaco

yeah you probably want to set this up a bit differently.
you would want to use the bandwidth command in these shaped classes.
the shape command (setting PIR) operate a bit differently then the classes that have the bandwidth command set (setting cIR).
the CIR of a shape policy is 64k, so after the 64k is served, it moves over to the other classes, gets
the bw remaining assigned and then what is left is divided over the hsaped classes to the max of their PIR.
If you set the bandwidth on all classes you "reserve" that bandwidth on that class when that bw is needed.
may wanna pull cisco live form years 2013 and 2014 (orlando/sanfran) session ID 2904 for more details on QOS you may like.
regards
xander

QoS- priority with bandwith

Hi Gentleman,
I have done a lab to test the priority queue in Nexus 5548. Every thing looks fine except the scenario on which I added bandwidth command to limit the priority queue BW in case of congestion.
During this tests I realized that my queue continue working as a priority queue even exceeding the allowed BW.
I dont know if this is the default behavior of nexus 5k or something is going wrong

Priority queue level 1 is served first, at strict priority, until the queue is empty or the BW limitation imposed by policing is reached.
PQ level 2 is scheduled after priority level 1, until the queue is empty or the BW limitation imposed by policing is reached.
BW classes are scheduled afterwards.
If there is less traffic to be sent in PQ1 nor PQ2 than the configured policer limit, other classes can take up the BW allocated to PQ1 and PQ2. 'bandwidth [percent]' command defines the guaranteed minimum BW for the class, it does not impose the maximum BW.
All configuration commands are dicumented in http://tools.cisco.com/Support/CLILookup/cltSearchAction.do

ASA5505 - Qos / Priority / Traffic Shaping - VOIP/SIP

I have a client using a VOIP service to a third party provider (RingCentral). They are connected via Cable ISP (6mb) to the Internet and now experiencing performance issues with their VOIP service. They indicated that the call can be heard but that there is jitter and choppines in the call and they have to place a regular landline call. Their provider recoomended using QOS to help improve. I did not see anything straight forward on the ASDM interface to do this and figure it may require command line to accomplish.
They have Cisco IP 303 and 5252G2 phones which connect through an ASA5505 7.2(4) to their provider for service. Apparently the voip app uses the following ports:
UDP
5060-5090
8000-8200
16384-16482
What would be the best solution to improve performance or perhaps traffic shape / priortize traffic to help. I assume this may be happening if there are heavy downloads or activity happening on the network. The ASA5505 is on 7.2(4). I'd appreciate if someone could provide some coded examples for the above info.
Much appreciated!

Hi Vito,
You can prioritize your voice traffic over data traffic, refer to this doc for prioritization:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/vpndevc/ps2030/products_tech_note09186a008084de0c.shtml#Pqu
Hope that helps
Thanks,
Varun

MPLS QoS Priority

Hi everybody,
I've seen guys saying that ICMP has low priority on MPLS Domain and normaly i can lost some packet when I ping some router on mpls domain, but I'd like to know when it is true, because I did mpls course and I didnt see nothing about that. ICMP has low priority just when I pratice MPLS TE on my network or it is include on mpls's struture.

Hi Santos,
What you heard is partially true.
1) ICMP has low processing priority and also as you ISP said should not be used for troubleshooting. Now a days you have inbuilt Control Plane Policing where you can do police or completely drop ICMP packets which are not from known destinations. But again this behaviour has nothing to do with MPLS in specific. Its general.
Also you may like to go through this link for academic purpose.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps1831/products_tech_note09186a00800a6057.shtml#performance
2) As far as MPLS domain goes, If you ISP hasnt done any ratelimiting or ICMP discard at the edge then the packets shouldnt be lost or discarded in the Domain. Because whatever happens happends at the edge. As the devices in the CORE dont know whether the CE packet is a ICMP or HTTP or any other application packet.
HTH-Cheers,
Swaroop

MPLS QoS - SUP720BXL GE Port not supporting Strict Priority & Priority %

Hi Sir,
My customer have few C7609s with SUP720 3BXL and running IOS image s72033-advipservicesk9_wan-mz.122-18.SXF6.bin within the MPLS network.
What I experienced is that I can't configured the built-in GE port of the SUP720 for Strict Priority & Priority Percent QoS.
Is there anyone outside there know what is the equivalent or alternative to above mentioned two QoS features ? This is mainly to priortize the voice traffic.
Thanks in advance.
Ray.

The below has been recommended for a customer using 7600 in the
Core with GiGs as normal core facing links.
The implementation goes as below:
i) Enabling the MLS on the 7600 chassis.
mls qos
ii) Configuring Trust Boundary on all Interfaces.
interface GigabitEthernet1/1
mls qos trust
<--By default the Trust Command trusts the incoming DSCP/TOS.
When the ports are configured with the Trust Boundary as given above,
all incoming packets are mapped into Initial Internal DSCP values.
These values are used purely as a reference MAP for Internal QOS
processing on the 7600.
Internal DSCP Output COS
DSCP 0 7 COS 0
DSCP 8 15 COS 1
DSCP 16 23 COS 2
DSCP 24 31 COS 3
DSCP 32 39 COS 4
DSCP 40 47 COS 5
DSCP 48 55 COS 6
DSCP 56 63 COS 7
This deafault mapping can be modified by modifying the DSCP-COS MAP
within the MLS QOS. The the default mapping are as per standards,
and hence it is not recommended to change the mapping.
iii) Directing Traffic into the appropriate Egress Queue.
Once the incoming traffic is mapped to the Initial Internal DSCP,
and the same gets mapped to the Output COS, these values need to
be directed to the appropriate Queues for the desired QOS behavior
on the MPLS EXP packets.
interface x/x
wrr-queue cos-map
priority-queue cos-map
For Eg:
interface gigabitethernet 1/10
wrr-queue cos-map 2 threshold 2 0
wrr-queue cos-map 3 threshold 2 1 2
wrr-queue cos-map 4 threshold 2 3 4
priority-queue cos-map 1 5 6 7
iv) Defining Queue Bandwidth Limits.
After directing the COS to appropriate queues and then assigning them
to appropriate drop threshold values, it is required to define the
bandwidth allocation per queue. This can be done as below.
!<-- To Set minimum assured bandwidth to COS Queue 1,2 & 3
Use the Bandwdith Percentage command as below.
interface GigabitEthernet 1/1
wrr-queue bandwidth percent !
<--Total of Queue Weights should be =100%
To evenly distribute the available bandwidth during congestion for
all the 4 queues, it is required to set the Queue Scheduling Weights
between all the four Queues. This is done by assigning the queues
weights which are used during WRR scheduling.
!<--Set the Queue-Limit Weights of WRR Scheduling as below
interface GigabitEthernet 1/1
wrr-queue queue-limit
priority-queue queue-limit xx
!<--For Example:
interface GigabitEthernet 1/1
wrr-queue queue-limit 25 20 22
priority-queue queue-limit 33
!<-- The example above does a Queue scheduling for Queue 1 for 25% of BW,
Queue 2 for 20% and Queue 3 for 22 % and Priority Queue has 33 %.
To conclude if you want to use the conventional MQC based toggles,
you will need to use FlexWans with WAN ports or OSM's. Where you can
apply the conventional MQC based toggles.
FOr all the LAN ports in 7600 only hardware queues are supported which
can be controlled using MLS, the difference between SUP and Module based
LAN ports is withing the Scheduling alogirthms supported, the Egress and Ingress
buffers, and the number of queues and drop thresholds available.
For Reference use this link:
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/core/cis7600/software/122sr/swcg/qos.htm
HTH-Cheers,
Swaroop
PS:
Policy Map Class Command Restrictions
PFC QoS does not support these policy map class commands:
?bandwidth
?priority
?queue-limit
?random-detect
?set qos-group
?service-policy

Configuring QoS for FIOS Router MI-424WR: Traffic Priority and Shaping

Please only read on if you are an experienced internet user familiar with setting the advanced QoS and Firewall settings for the MI-424WR and make use of wireless adaptors from a PC to provide connectivity.
This is my first post and my first week since I moved from Time Warner Cable over to FIOS for iNet (plus HDTV and phone).     While all my services work, the router as delivered and setup is not optimum for internet quality of service. Instead it was probably out of the box optimized for HDTV and telephone to satisfy most customers and reduce support overhead.   The average FIOS consumer is multimedia sensitive, but that is not so in my genre of internet consumer.   Here in lies the core of my reason for seeking help from like minded and experienced users in this community.
One of the main driving forces in my switching to FIOS was to improve my multiplayer gaming experience where ultra low ping latency and high upload data rates dramatically affect the quality of connection and thus gameplay.    The cable internet service from TimeWarner was providing solid 2MB/1MB down/up data rates with no issues like what Im having now with FIOS.   Again the reason for the switch was both financial and in hope of gaining better data rates and quality of service.   Now with FIOS Im getting about 24/15 down/up data rate on the Extreme FIOS 25/25 plan when measured from my house to Los Angeles server (50 miles away) via Speedtest.net or DslReports.com/tests.     Latency wise, the ping has gone down from 150 to 50ms when measured to my friends who I connect to online that are on the East coast.   The data rate and latency has greatly improved in going from Cable to FIOS.   So far, so good.
Where the problem shows up now, is that now I get an internet "hiccup" every 5-10 minutes that lasts about 1/2 to 2 seconds.   For the average internet user that just streams multimedia or cruises on the net; this is probably undetectable or noticed.   I never had this problem over the same PCs connected wirelessly to my DLINK DGL-4500 Gaming Router when my ISP was TimeWarner's cable service.    Now, using the FIOS and MI-424WR router with everythings being the same; Im experiencing this degregation in quality of service.    Even putting the PC's IP into the DMZ doesnt make any difference, so it is not related to port forwarding.    The issue is squarely in the lap of FIOS and this router as delivered and configured.    This is where the "game" is a foot, and where I need expertise in an area Im new to.
I am not new to being hands on with inet trouble shooting asI have been setting up my own home network (I work from home over VPN to work) for decades; I would like to leverage the skills of those who are experts in the area that I think can address this issue.   That being QoS and the other device class mechanisms of this router.   Its my guess that this periodic hiccup can be minimized and even eliminated using these advanced features of this all-in-one TV/iNet/Tele router.
With that context being laid down, this hiccup doesnt show up if:
a. I connect two PCs connected to the same ethernet hub of the MI-424WR (traffic just over the LAN and not WAN)
b. When I was on Cable with my own gaming router wirelessly DHCP connected to my PC and using port forwarding or using the DMZ.
The hiccup does exist when:
a.  Going from internet through the MI-424WR to the wireless DHCP connected PC with port forwarding
b. Even putting the wireless DHCP connected PC into the MI-424WR's DMZ has no effect
I did read the manual and tried some QoS pritority and shaping and managed to reduce how often the hiccup occured, but I was just making guesses at the settings.   I put in the IP for the PCs I use for my gaming applications (which are very ping and jitter sensitive) into the QoS priority (value 7) and shaping GUI.    Im hoping someone with experience can tell me exactly how to use it and what settings to input.   Im not clear on the device and connection types offered in the QoS menus.
Another thing, is I couldnt find settings for the turning on/off the ICMP echo.   But I assume this is on because it can be pinged by folks on the net to my WAN IP.
Here is the manual for the Verizon provided M424WR router (Current Version of firmware: 20.10.7)
download link
Here are the QoS traffic priority and shaping values Ive been experimenting with:
Click to view QoS Traffic Priority
Click to view QoS Traffic Shaping
And why it matters to have a solid and stable inet connection for internet gaming? The hiccup causes slewing or jitter which equates to positional errors in the 3D world that ruins the smooth gameplay that is needed for high end gaming.
Heres a snapshot of me flying the wing of another flight simmer who is on the East coast and me on the West coast.
Click to view
Thank you in advance.
Thomas "AV8R"
MSEE

TMAS wrote:
the router as delivered and setup is not optimum for internet quality of service. Instead it was probably out of the box optimized for HDTV and telephone to satisfy most customers and reduce support overhead.
That's not accurate. VZ telephone service does not go through the Actiontec. Also, there are no default settings for QOS in the Actiontec since QOS is rarely needed with FIOS upload speeds.
TMAS wrote:I get an internet "hiccup" every 5-10 minutes that lasts about 1/2 to 2 seconds.
   You should not be experiencing periodic "hiccups". Something is clearly amiss.
TMAS wrote:
With that context being laid down, this hiccup doesnt show up if:a. I connect two PCs connected to the same ethernet hub of the MI-424WR (traffic just over the LAN and not WAN)
The hiccup does exist when:
a.  Going from internet through the MI-424WR to the wireless DHCP connected PC with port forwarding
b. Even putting the wireless DHCP connected PC into the MI-424WR's DMZ has no effect
Lets see. The issue shows up on a wireless connection, but not a wired connection. You think this is a QOS issue and not a wireless issue why? Have you tried changing the wireless channel? It very possible you have neighbors on the same channel. Is the DGL-4500 wireless still on? Could that be interfering?TMAS wrote:
Another thing, is I couldnt find settings for the turning on/off the ICMP echo.
The settting to enable/disable ICMP echo is on the Firewall/Remote Administration page.
TMAS wrote:
Here are the QoS traffic priority and shaping values Ive been experimenting with:Click to view QoS Traffic Priority
Click to view QoS Traffic Shaping
The traffic proirity settings you linked are applied only to your wireless connections. QOS between the router and your wireless PC will only serve to prioritize traffic between the router and that PC and have no affect on your internet traffic. Assuming you are not running browsers, VOIP and other traffic from that PC while you're gaming, then that will not accomplish anything. i.e. You're giving your only traffic highest priority, but that traffic is not competing with anything (except other nearby wireless connections on the same channel).
On the traffic shaping screenshot, you have broadband ethernet checked, but according to your other thread, your WAN connection is Broadband Coax, not Broadband ethernet.

QoS for App-V

Hello,
I'm currently configuring new 3750X switches.
I must implement QoS on the stack. The QoS must be the following:
VOIP Class (50%)
App-V Class (40%)
Movie Class (10%)
How I can do this (in particular for AppV)? I do the following for the moment:
class-map match-any VOIP
match protocol voice
match dscp ef
match protocol sip
match protocol skype
match protocol rtp audio
match protocol rtp video
exit
class-map AppV
exit
class-map Movie
match protocol rtp video
exit
policy-map BandwidthTraffic
class VOIP
priority percent 50
set dscp ef
class AppV
bandwidth remaining percent 40
class Movie
bandwidth remaining percent 10
interface Gig1/0/3
ip nbar protocol-discovery
service-policy input BandwidthTraffic
Anyone can says me if it's correct or not? And why?
Thank you for your help.
Florent

Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
It appears you've some router QoS. 3750X QoS is quite different for egress as you're limited to working with four egress queues. I don't recall 3750X supporting NBAR.
Suggest you read the configuration guide's chapter on QoS, for you 3750X IOS version, and then post questions as necessary. (My concern is, 3750X QoS is so different, it wouldn't be helpful to suggest a QoS configuration until you had a basic understanding of the 3750 QoS architecture and features.)

LLQ priority issue after upgrading to Sup32 on Cisco 6509

Hi,
I have 1x Cisco 6509 with Sup2 and MSFC2 and it is running on IOS (c6k222-jk9sv-mz.122-17d.SXB11).
I have following policy map :
Policy Map VOIP
Class IPPHONE
priority percent 75
and the following command on each interface:
service-policy output VOIP
those configuration are working fine on SUP2 with MSFC2 but last week I tried to upgrade the SUP2 to SUP32 on the switch and upgrade the IOS to the latest version (s3223-adventerprisek9-mz.122-33.SXJ4)
but when I try to put service-policy output VOIP on each physical interface I am getting the following error:
"Priority command is not supported in output direction for this interface"
and when I try to add service-policy output VOIP on a VLAN interface I am getting following error:
MQC features are not supported in output direction for this interface.
Please let me know if I need to change something after upgrading to SUP32.
Thanks

Hi
Hi
Sup32 uses PFC3B for Hardware forwarding and implemenation of features like qos, acl, netflow etc
PFC QoS does not support these policy map class commands:
•bandwidth
•priority
•queue-limit
•random-detect
•set qos-group
•service-policy
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SX/configuration/guide/qos.html
Thanks
Raju

Qos for H323 Video tele conference traffic

Hi All,
I am using Tandberg video equipment(bridge MPS200, endpoint MPX2000, MPX6000). My WAN routers are Cisco 2800/3800 connecting to MPLS network.
Jitters are between 4ms - 20ms. Picture quality is not very good when I use the bridge calls out to 8 endpoints at 384Kbps.
would you put audio and video traffic into the same class and mark it as EF, or seperate them with marking RTP audio as EF and RTP video = Ip precedence 4?
thanks
PH

Just for the record
The Cisco Enterprise QoS SRND reccomends putting Video AF41 in the PQ.
1st ref 3-12
policy-map WAN-EDGE
class Voice
priority percent 18 ! Voice gets 552 kbps of LLQ
class Interactive Video
priority percent 15 ! 384 kbps IP/VC needs 460 kbps of LLQ
class Call Signaling
bandwidth percent 5 ! BW guarantee for Call-Signaling
class Network Control
bandwidth percent 5 ! Routing and Network Management get min 5% BW
class Critical Data
bandwidth percent 27 ! Critical Data gets min 27% BW
random-detect dscp-based ! Enables DSCP-WRED for Critical-Data class
class Bulk Data
bandwidth percent 4 ! Bulk Data gets min 4% BW guarantee
www.cisco.com/go/srnd
When provisioning for Interactive Video (IP Videoconferencing) traffic, the following guidelines are
recommended:
? Interactive Video traffic should be marked to DSCP AF41; excess Interactive-Video traffic can be
marked down by a policer to AF42 or AF43.
? Loss should be no more than 1 %.
? One-way Latency should be no more than 150 ms.
? Jitter should be no more than 30 ms.
? Overprovision Interactive Video queues by 20% to accommodate bursts
Because IP Videoconferencing (IP/VC) includes a G.711 audio codec for voice, it has the same loss,
delay, and delay variation requirements as voice, but the traffic patterns of videoconferencing are
radically different from voice.

Implemention QOS for Voice

Hi,
We have a 2Mbps LL 1:4
we are using CSICO ATA for Voice.
we are using cisco 2620 router .
Here are my questions.
1.Kindly check My config and say whether this QOS config will work for prioritising the Voice.
class-map match-all VOIP-RTP
match ip dscp ef
policy-map VOICE-QOS
class VOIP-RTP
priority 1024
interface Serial0/0
description ### STPI-GATEWAY-VASHI ###
bandwidth 2048
ip address 213.11.12.115 255.255.255.252
ip access-group 103 in
ip access-group 103 out
service-policy output VOICE-QOS
shutdown
2.How can i filter the HTTP,TELNET,SSH,RDP,FTP traffic.
Kindly help me.
Thanks
Ranga

A more scalable config (that you dont have to redo too much) might include bandwidth guarantees for other classes of traffic as well...
Also, I like to go with the qos design guide recommendation and set aside a queue for voice signalling... like the following...
i also dont "match ip dscp ef" but rather just look for rtp audio... dont always have a marking switch/phone system behind your router... sometimes its a whitebox phone system sending rtp packets, and a dumb switch... I also go with a nested policy, which shapes all to the speed of the link, then decides which traffic will follow the rules of the child policy to leave the single queue ;)
class-map match-any manage
match protocol dhcp
match protocol dns
match protocol kerberos
match protocol ldap
match protocol snmp
match protocol syslog
class-map match-any bulk
match protocol exchange
match protocol ftp
match protocol pop3
match protocol smtp
class-map match-any voicesignal
match protocol h323
match protocol rtcp
class-map match-any transactional
match protocol citrix
match protocol pcanywhere
match protocol secure-telnet
match protocol sqlnet
match protocol sqlserver
match protocol ssh
match protocol telnet
match protocol tsrvrdp
class-map match-any video
match protocol rtp video
match protocol cuseeme
match protocol netshow
match protocol rtsp
match protocol streamwork
match protocol vdolive
class-map match-any voicebearer
match protocol rtp audio
policy-map Pol-S0/0/0.1-child
class voicebearer
set dscp ef
priority percent 25
class transactional
bandwidth percent 25
class voicesignal
bandwidth percent 5
class manage
bandwidth percent 5
policy-map Pol-S0/0/0.1-parent
class class-default
shape average 1444000
service-policy Pol-0/0/0.1-child
int s0/0/0.1
service-policy output Pol-S0/0/0.1-parent
(yes not all my classes are used in my policy; they are for future use... nice to have them in there now though, as they can always be allocated some bandwidth later on, at the expense of what is carved out now...)
Tschuss,
Joe

Priority queue for voice/audio traffic

Hi,
Still in limbo after multiple discussions with our vendors, TAC and in general other engineers, so starting a thread here. In the process of rolling out enterprise audio, with the intent to prioritize and allocate 25% of link bandwidth for voice class.
Our config snapshow is as follows -
policy-map qos-wan-out
class dscp-voice-lan
set ip precedence 5
priority percent 25
I understand that
-DURING congestion, this will ensure voice gets a maximum of 25% and is dequeued first due to the priority setting
-And during NO congestion, the voice traffic will be dequeued before other traffic, but at the same time, can go over 25% as QoS kicks in only during congestion.
I am seeing some contradictory results in that we are having high packet loss if we exceed 25% even when the link is less than 40% utilized. I doubt the above CE configurations are an issue. But, wanted to run this by this group.
Alternate theory is that with the above configurations, our traffic is exiting fine - but the service provider who is using priority class queuing within their MPLS network may be capping the bandwidth at 25% at all times (with or without congestion).
thanks

Hi Bro
Maybe the incoming voice packets into your FW isn't marked with ef. For this reason, you don't see anything at all. I hope the QOS isn't tied to a subinterface, as QOS is only supported on the main interface itself. What you're doing here is QoS Configuration based on DSCP. You could refer to this URL for troubleshooting purposes.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps6120/products_configuration_example09186a008080dfa7.shtml#tab4
Did you marked on the Cisco Catalyst switchports, which ports are ef?

QOS - VOIP traffic: payload and signalling

Two questions For VOIP traffic,
Q.1. should the payload and signalling be assigned the same COS ?? to avoid losing Signalling traffic.
Q.2. flash upgrades to the phone sets are tftp. Should this traffic be assigned COS=0 or the same cos as the signalling traffic ? Phone flash gets corrupted if some of these packets are lost ?
thanks for your help,

Hello,
best practice puts signaling into another class than voip "payload" as you named it.
The reason is that the qos requirements are different. Signaling needs guaranteed bandwidth, voip needs low delay and guaranteed bandwidth.
TFTP can be placed into signaling class or in a separate class.
An example config could look like this:
ip cef
class-map match-any VoIP
match ip dscp ef cs5
match protocol rtp audio
class-map match-any VoIPsignal
match ip dscp cs3
class-map match-all TFTP
match protocol tftp
policy-map VoIPprio
class VoIP
priority percent 10
class VoIPsignal
bandwidth remaining percent 5
class TFTP
bandwidth remaining percent 5
class class-default
fair-queue
random-detect
interface Serial0
ip address ...
service-policy output VoIPprio
You would have to adjust the bandwith ratios for your needs and the interface naming to your environment.
The policy will give 10% of the link to voip traffic with lowest possible delay, 5% of the rest for voip signaling, 5% to TFTP and the rest for the other data present.
Hope this helps

QoS marking problem

I have a trouble to implement dynamic QoS between two sites (Site A, and site B) across low speed WAN link (512k). On each site I have Cisco 1921 router. Most important app is Oracle. Because of slow speed WAN links, I want to avoid exact bandwith reservation for Oracle. I only reserve 5% bandwith for network control(icmp, ssh, telnet...) and want configure next Qos scenario:
1. If Oracle traffic exist on a network, it must have 70% of link speed guaranteed, all other apps (e.g mail, file share, ftp) use rest of the bandwith.
2. If there isn't Oracle traffic on a network, all other apps can use all available bandwith.
Issue descrtption:
I used all Cisco guides, but when I implemented this on production it simply didn't work. There is no any significant improvement after implementing this (when I start network file sharing accross wan link, Oracle becomes etremly slow.). Do anyone hadsimilar problem?
Here is configuration wich I trying to implement:
ACL-s and class-maps used to mark traffic:
access-list 119 remark ###QoS-MGMT###
access-list 119 permit tcp any any eq 22
access-list 119 permit tcp any any eq telnet
access-list 119 permit icmp any any
access-list 120 remark ###QoS-DB_ORA###
access-list 120 permit ip any host 10.100.40.30
access-list 120 permit tcp any any eq 1521
class-map match-any Oracle
match access-group 120
class-map match-any Mgmt_Traffic
match access-group 119
policy-map LAN
class Mgmt_Traffic
set dscp 7
class Oracle
set dscp 5
class class-default
set dscp default
policy-map WAN
class Oracle
priority percent 70
class Mgmt_Traffic
priority percent 5
Implementation of this policy maps (both sites are identical):
interface FastEthernet0/0
description WAN
bandwidth 512
service-policy output WAN
interface FastEthernet0/1
description LAN
bandwidth 512
service-policy input LAN
Thanx for help!

Disclaimer
The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.
Liability Disclaimer
In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.
Posting
Any other idea?
Yes, several.
First, we might confirm whether CBWFQ is working as configured. To be precise, when TAC "showed me" shaped/child CBWFQ worked correctly under 15.x, it was a specific 15.x something (I'll have to find what they actually used) and I took their word for it, i.e. I didn't actually confirm it operated correctly as our internal IOS usage standards don't (yet) allow 15.x code.
Easiest way to confirm correct operation, use a traffic generator to push 1 Mbps to the two classes and see if overall rate is limited to 512 Mbps and bandwidth proportions are 70/30.
I note you wrote you did try the 2nd LLQ policy, correct? Well, it too should be tested to insure your rate is limited to 512 and 70/30 bandwidth split. (You can also try a variation of the last w/o any FQ.)
If above tests confirm correct operation, then there are numerous reasons why you're not obtaining the performance you expect. For example, your WAN vendor could have a misconfiguration or even a technical issue they're unaware of (my experience the former is rare, say less than 1% of the time, the latter is very, very rare but I've seen such too [e.g. 3 months of complaining to a tier one vendor, Ethernet performance not quite right, they finally found cause - buggy firmware on one of their line cards]); or the nature of your traffic you're testing with causes "unexpected behavior" (e.g. UDP vs. TCP?); or L2 rates vs. L3 rates (touched on that in my prior post); application sensitivity (e.g. don't know about Oracle, but some earlier version of SAP were extremely "fragile"); or etc.
So, first confirm CBWFQ is working as it should. If not, you'll need to work with TAC. If it's working correctly, we can start to eliminate other possible issues.

QoS Priority Percent

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for