QOS police vs bandwidth - is this configuration wrong?












2














I understand bandwidth in QOS is use to guarantee a minimum bandwidth



I understand police in QOS is to set a limit to the maximum bandwidth.



class test_out
police **1608000** 50000 100000 conform-action set-dscp-transmit af31 exceed-action set-dscp-transmit af32 violate-action set-dscp-transmit 28
**bandwidth 2542**
random-detect dscp-based
random-detect exponential-weighting-constant 7
random-detect dscp 26 50 80 10
random-detect dscp 28 15 40 5


Can someone tell me if the above configuration is self defeating ?



I have a guarantee bandwidth of 2542Kb, but traffic is being police at 1608000 bits = 1570Kb



==================



Edit:



q1) With the police value configured lowered then the guarantee bandwidth, is my traffic still able to reach the guarantee bandwidth ?



q2) If it is able to reach the guarantee bandwidth due to the fact that the exceed and violate action does not drop traffic, then what is the difference between the exceed and violate action of set-dscp-transmit af32 and dscp 28 ? (both seems to have the same DSCP value)










share|improve this question
























  • Did any answer help you? If so, you should accept the answer so that the question doesn't keep popping up forever, looking for an answer. Alternatively, you can provide and accept your own answer.
    – Ron Maupin
    Dec 25 at 10:27
















2














I understand bandwidth in QOS is use to guarantee a minimum bandwidth



I understand police in QOS is to set a limit to the maximum bandwidth.



class test_out
police **1608000** 50000 100000 conform-action set-dscp-transmit af31 exceed-action set-dscp-transmit af32 violate-action set-dscp-transmit 28
**bandwidth 2542**
random-detect dscp-based
random-detect exponential-weighting-constant 7
random-detect dscp 26 50 80 10
random-detect dscp 28 15 40 5


Can someone tell me if the above configuration is self defeating ?



I have a guarantee bandwidth of 2542Kb, but traffic is being police at 1608000 bits = 1570Kb



==================



Edit:



q1) With the police value configured lowered then the guarantee bandwidth, is my traffic still able to reach the guarantee bandwidth ?



q2) If it is able to reach the guarantee bandwidth due to the fact that the exceed and violate action does not drop traffic, then what is the difference between the exceed and violate action of set-dscp-transmit af32 and dscp 28 ? (both seems to have the same DSCP value)










share|improve this question
























  • Did any answer help you? If so, you should accept the answer so that the question doesn't keep popping up forever, looking for an answer. Alternatively, you can provide and accept your own answer.
    – Ron Maupin
    Dec 25 at 10:27














2












2








2







I understand bandwidth in QOS is use to guarantee a minimum bandwidth



I understand police in QOS is to set a limit to the maximum bandwidth.



class test_out
police **1608000** 50000 100000 conform-action set-dscp-transmit af31 exceed-action set-dscp-transmit af32 violate-action set-dscp-transmit 28
**bandwidth 2542**
random-detect dscp-based
random-detect exponential-weighting-constant 7
random-detect dscp 26 50 80 10
random-detect dscp 28 15 40 5


Can someone tell me if the above configuration is self defeating ?



I have a guarantee bandwidth of 2542Kb, but traffic is being police at 1608000 bits = 1570Kb



==================



Edit:



q1) With the police value configured lowered then the guarantee bandwidth, is my traffic still able to reach the guarantee bandwidth ?



q2) If it is able to reach the guarantee bandwidth due to the fact that the exceed and violate action does not drop traffic, then what is the difference between the exceed and violate action of set-dscp-transmit af32 and dscp 28 ? (both seems to have the same DSCP value)










share|improve this question















I understand bandwidth in QOS is use to guarantee a minimum bandwidth



I understand police in QOS is to set a limit to the maximum bandwidth.



class test_out
police **1608000** 50000 100000 conform-action set-dscp-transmit af31 exceed-action set-dscp-transmit af32 violate-action set-dscp-transmit 28
**bandwidth 2542**
random-detect dscp-based
random-detect exponential-weighting-constant 7
random-detect dscp 26 50 80 10
random-detect dscp 28 15 40 5


Can someone tell me if the above configuration is self defeating ?



I have a guarantee bandwidth of 2542Kb, but traffic is being police at 1608000 bits = 1570Kb



==================



Edit:



q1) With the police value configured lowered then the guarantee bandwidth, is my traffic still able to reach the guarantee bandwidth ?



q2) If it is able to reach the guarantee bandwidth due to the fact that the exceed and violate action does not drop traffic, then what is the difference between the exceed and violate action of set-dscp-transmit af32 and dscp 28 ? (both seems to have the same DSCP value)







cisco switch router qos bandwidth






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 20 at 21:24









Ron Maupin

62.2k1262118




62.2k1262118










asked Dec 16 at 8:16









Noob

29329




29329












  • Did any answer help you? If so, you should accept the answer so that the question doesn't keep popping up forever, looking for an answer. Alternatively, you can provide and accept your own answer.
    – Ron Maupin
    Dec 25 at 10:27


















  • Did any answer help you? If so, you should accept the answer so that the question doesn't keep popping up forever, looking for an answer. Alternatively, you can provide and accept your own answer.
    – Ron Maupin
    Dec 25 at 10:27
















Did any answer help you? If so, you should accept the answer so that the question doesn't keep popping up forever, looking for an answer. Alternatively, you can provide and accept your own answer.
– Ron Maupin
Dec 25 at 10:27




Did any answer help you? If so, you should accept the answer so that the question doesn't keep popping up forever, looking for an answer. Alternatively, you can provide and accept your own answer.
– Ron Maupin
Dec 25 at 10:27










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3















I understand bandwidth in QOS is use to guarantee a minimum bandwidth




There is really a lot more to QoS than that.




I understand police in QOS is to set a limit to the maximum bandwidth.




Policing is dropping traffic that exceeds certain parameters.



To actually police, you need to drop traffic above your predefined bandwidth. You are still allowing all traffic, only setting the DSCP for traffic exceeding the bandwidth.



Normally, you use a priority queue to guarantee minimum bandwidth for a class, then drop any traffic exceeding the guaranteed minimum bandwidth. Do that in your policy map. For example:



policy-map Test
class VoIP
priority percent 23
police cir percent 23 conform-action transmit exceed-action drop
!


Your example configuration really isn't doing much for you.





Edit:



You are simply changing markings in the class map. It is a policy map that would give you the guaranteed bandwidth by using a priority queue. Policing is dropping traffic outside of your parameters.



You want to classify and mark traffic as close to the source as possible, setting up a trust point. After that, you can treat (police, queue, shape) the traffic based on the marking.



Trying to do both on a router will certainly drive up the CPU utilization, and it doesn't allow you to treat the traffic throughout your whole network. In general, you classify and mark on the access switches, then treat on the routers.



See this two-part answer for more about QoS.






share|improve this answer























  • thanks for the reply. I actually inherit this configuration from a service provider and is trying to see if the configuration make sense. I have edited by original post - hope you can take a look
    – Noob
    Dec 16 at 18:39










  • We would really need a lot more information about the network and the network device configurations to offer even a valid opinion. Based on the little bit you have there, it looks like a mess. It may be worthwhile for the business to hire a consultant to come up with a comprehensive QoS plan, and then you document it so that this situation does not arise in the future.
    – Ron Maupin
    Dec 17 at 2:24












  • agreed. but the first and foremost concern would be if i am still able to reach the guarantee bandwidth provided despite having a lower policer cir rate. since the policer is not actualy dropping any excess, can i assume i am able to reach the ganrantee bandwidth of 2542 then ?
    – Noob
    Dec 17 at 13:08













Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "496"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f55497%2fqos-police-vs-bandwidth-is-this-configuration-wrong%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3















I understand bandwidth in QOS is use to guarantee a minimum bandwidth




There is really a lot more to QoS than that.




I understand police in QOS is to set a limit to the maximum bandwidth.




Policing is dropping traffic that exceeds certain parameters.



To actually police, you need to drop traffic above your predefined bandwidth. You are still allowing all traffic, only setting the DSCP for traffic exceeding the bandwidth.



Normally, you use a priority queue to guarantee minimum bandwidth for a class, then drop any traffic exceeding the guaranteed minimum bandwidth. Do that in your policy map. For example:



policy-map Test
class VoIP
priority percent 23
police cir percent 23 conform-action transmit exceed-action drop
!


Your example configuration really isn't doing much for you.





Edit:



You are simply changing markings in the class map. It is a policy map that would give you the guaranteed bandwidth by using a priority queue. Policing is dropping traffic outside of your parameters.



You want to classify and mark traffic as close to the source as possible, setting up a trust point. After that, you can treat (police, queue, shape) the traffic based on the marking.



Trying to do both on a router will certainly drive up the CPU utilization, and it doesn't allow you to treat the traffic throughout your whole network. In general, you classify and mark on the access switches, then treat on the routers.



See this two-part answer for more about QoS.






share|improve this answer























  • thanks for the reply. I actually inherit this configuration from a service provider and is trying to see if the configuration make sense. I have edited by original post - hope you can take a look
    – Noob
    Dec 16 at 18:39










  • We would really need a lot more information about the network and the network device configurations to offer even a valid opinion. Based on the little bit you have there, it looks like a mess. It may be worthwhile for the business to hire a consultant to come up with a comprehensive QoS plan, and then you document it so that this situation does not arise in the future.
    – Ron Maupin
    Dec 17 at 2:24












  • agreed. but the first and foremost concern would be if i am still able to reach the guarantee bandwidth provided despite having a lower policer cir rate. since the policer is not actualy dropping any excess, can i assume i am able to reach the ganrantee bandwidth of 2542 then ?
    – Noob
    Dec 17 at 13:08


















3















I understand bandwidth in QOS is use to guarantee a minimum bandwidth




There is really a lot more to QoS than that.




I understand police in QOS is to set a limit to the maximum bandwidth.




Policing is dropping traffic that exceeds certain parameters.



To actually police, you need to drop traffic above your predefined bandwidth. You are still allowing all traffic, only setting the DSCP for traffic exceeding the bandwidth.



Normally, you use a priority queue to guarantee minimum bandwidth for a class, then drop any traffic exceeding the guaranteed minimum bandwidth. Do that in your policy map. For example:



policy-map Test
class VoIP
priority percent 23
police cir percent 23 conform-action transmit exceed-action drop
!


Your example configuration really isn't doing much for you.





Edit:



You are simply changing markings in the class map. It is a policy map that would give you the guaranteed bandwidth by using a priority queue. Policing is dropping traffic outside of your parameters.



You want to classify and mark traffic as close to the source as possible, setting up a trust point. After that, you can treat (police, queue, shape) the traffic based on the marking.



Trying to do both on a router will certainly drive up the CPU utilization, and it doesn't allow you to treat the traffic throughout your whole network. In general, you classify and mark on the access switches, then treat on the routers.



See this two-part answer for more about QoS.






share|improve this answer























  • thanks for the reply. I actually inherit this configuration from a service provider and is trying to see if the configuration make sense. I have edited by original post - hope you can take a look
    – Noob
    Dec 16 at 18:39










  • We would really need a lot more information about the network and the network device configurations to offer even a valid opinion. Based on the little bit you have there, it looks like a mess. It may be worthwhile for the business to hire a consultant to come up with a comprehensive QoS plan, and then you document it so that this situation does not arise in the future.
    – Ron Maupin
    Dec 17 at 2:24












  • agreed. but the first and foremost concern would be if i am still able to reach the guarantee bandwidth provided despite having a lower policer cir rate. since the policer is not actualy dropping any excess, can i assume i am able to reach the ganrantee bandwidth of 2542 then ?
    – Noob
    Dec 17 at 13:08
















3












3








3







I understand bandwidth in QOS is use to guarantee a minimum bandwidth




There is really a lot more to QoS than that.




I understand police in QOS is to set a limit to the maximum bandwidth.




Policing is dropping traffic that exceeds certain parameters.



To actually police, you need to drop traffic above your predefined bandwidth. You are still allowing all traffic, only setting the DSCP for traffic exceeding the bandwidth.



Normally, you use a priority queue to guarantee minimum bandwidth for a class, then drop any traffic exceeding the guaranteed minimum bandwidth. Do that in your policy map. For example:



policy-map Test
class VoIP
priority percent 23
police cir percent 23 conform-action transmit exceed-action drop
!


Your example configuration really isn't doing much for you.





Edit:



You are simply changing markings in the class map. It is a policy map that would give you the guaranteed bandwidth by using a priority queue. Policing is dropping traffic outside of your parameters.



You want to classify and mark traffic as close to the source as possible, setting up a trust point. After that, you can treat (police, queue, shape) the traffic based on the marking.



Trying to do both on a router will certainly drive up the CPU utilization, and it doesn't allow you to treat the traffic throughout your whole network. In general, you classify and mark on the access switches, then treat on the routers.



See this two-part answer for more about QoS.






share|improve this answer















I understand bandwidth in QOS is use to guarantee a minimum bandwidth




There is really a lot more to QoS than that.




I understand police in QOS is to set a limit to the maximum bandwidth.




Policing is dropping traffic that exceeds certain parameters.



To actually police, you need to drop traffic above your predefined bandwidth. You are still allowing all traffic, only setting the DSCP for traffic exceeding the bandwidth.



Normally, you use a priority queue to guarantee minimum bandwidth for a class, then drop any traffic exceeding the guaranteed minimum bandwidth. Do that in your policy map. For example:



policy-map Test
class VoIP
priority percent 23
police cir percent 23 conform-action transmit exceed-action drop
!


Your example configuration really isn't doing much for you.





Edit:



You are simply changing markings in the class map. It is a policy map that would give you the guaranteed bandwidth by using a priority queue. Policing is dropping traffic outside of your parameters.



You want to classify and mark traffic as close to the source as possible, setting up a trust point. After that, you can treat (police, queue, shape) the traffic based on the marking.



Trying to do both on a router will certainly drive up the CPU utilization, and it doesn't allow you to treat the traffic throughout your whole network. In general, you classify and mark on the access switches, then treat on the routers.



See this two-part answer for more about QoS.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Dec 16 at 18:45

























answered Dec 16 at 8:46









Ron Maupin

62.2k1262118




62.2k1262118












  • thanks for the reply. I actually inherit this configuration from a service provider and is trying to see if the configuration make sense. I have edited by original post - hope you can take a look
    – Noob
    Dec 16 at 18:39










  • We would really need a lot more information about the network and the network device configurations to offer even a valid opinion. Based on the little bit you have there, it looks like a mess. It may be worthwhile for the business to hire a consultant to come up with a comprehensive QoS plan, and then you document it so that this situation does not arise in the future.
    – Ron Maupin
    Dec 17 at 2:24












  • agreed. but the first and foremost concern would be if i am still able to reach the guarantee bandwidth provided despite having a lower policer cir rate. since the policer is not actualy dropping any excess, can i assume i am able to reach the ganrantee bandwidth of 2542 then ?
    – Noob
    Dec 17 at 13:08




















  • thanks for the reply. I actually inherit this configuration from a service provider and is trying to see if the configuration make sense. I have edited by original post - hope you can take a look
    – Noob
    Dec 16 at 18:39










  • We would really need a lot more information about the network and the network device configurations to offer even a valid opinion. Based on the little bit you have there, it looks like a mess. It may be worthwhile for the business to hire a consultant to come up with a comprehensive QoS plan, and then you document it so that this situation does not arise in the future.
    – Ron Maupin
    Dec 17 at 2:24












  • agreed. but the first and foremost concern would be if i am still able to reach the guarantee bandwidth provided despite having a lower policer cir rate. since the policer is not actualy dropping any excess, can i assume i am able to reach the ganrantee bandwidth of 2542 then ?
    – Noob
    Dec 17 at 13:08


















thanks for the reply. I actually inherit this configuration from a service provider and is trying to see if the configuration make sense. I have edited by original post - hope you can take a look
– Noob
Dec 16 at 18:39




thanks for the reply. I actually inherit this configuration from a service provider and is trying to see if the configuration make sense. I have edited by original post - hope you can take a look
– Noob
Dec 16 at 18:39












We would really need a lot more information about the network and the network device configurations to offer even a valid opinion. Based on the little bit you have there, it looks like a mess. It may be worthwhile for the business to hire a consultant to come up with a comprehensive QoS plan, and then you document it so that this situation does not arise in the future.
– Ron Maupin
Dec 17 at 2:24






We would really need a lot more information about the network and the network device configurations to offer even a valid opinion. Based on the little bit you have there, it looks like a mess. It may be worthwhile for the business to hire a consultant to come up with a comprehensive QoS plan, and then you document it so that this situation does not arise in the future.
– Ron Maupin
Dec 17 at 2:24














agreed. but the first and foremost concern would be if i am still able to reach the guarantee bandwidth provided despite having a lower policer cir rate. since the policer is not actualy dropping any excess, can i assume i am able to reach the ganrantee bandwidth of 2542 then ?
– Noob
Dec 17 at 13:08






agreed. but the first and foremost concern would be if i am still able to reach the guarantee bandwidth provided despite having a lower policer cir rate. since the policer is not actualy dropping any excess, can i assume i am able to reach the ganrantee bandwidth of 2542 then ?
– Noob
Dec 17 at 13:08




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Network Engineering Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f55497%2fqos-police-vs-bandwidth-is-this-configuration-wrong%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Morgemoulin

Scott Moir

Souastre