cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
1077
Views
5
Helpful
12
Replies

Shaping and Policing not working on 6509

<p>Hi Gurus,</p>

<p>Im having trouble on my policing and shaping on my 6509, its not working. My mrtg shows they exceed their limit.I dont know if its the ios, here's the version. IOS (tm) c6sup2_rp Software (c6sup2_rp-PK2O3SV-M), Version 12.1(20)E, EARLY DEPLOYMENT RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)</p>

<p>Heres my current config.</p>

<p>policy-map TEST<br />

  class TEST<br />

    shape average 2048000 6784 6784<br />

policy-map 1Mbps<br />

  class 1Mbps<br />

     police 1024000 32000 32000 conform-action transmit exceed-action drop<br />

policy-map 2Mbps<br />

  class 2Mbps<br />

     police 2048000 53000 53000 conform-action transmit exceed-action drop<br />

<br />

<br />

class-map match-all TEST<br />

  match access-group 111<br />

class-map match-all 1Mbps<br />

  description 1Mbps-Link<br />

  match access-group 111<br />

class-map match-all 2Mbps<br />

  description 2Mbps-Link<br />

  match access-group 111<br />

<br />

<br />

access-list 111 permit ip any any<br />

<br />

<br />

interface FastEthernet1/1<br />

 description "Bandwidth Test"<br />

 ip address x.x.x.x y.y.y.y<br />

 speed 100<br />

 duplex full<br />

 service-policy input 2Mbps<br />

 service-policy output TEST<br />

 no cdp enable</p>

<p>shed light. tnx</p>

<p> </p>

<p> </p>

12 Replies 12

Laurent Aubert
Cisco Employee
Cisco Employee

Hi Jeff,

PFC polices traffic based on L3 packets size so L2 header is not included. If the stats form MRTG take into account L2 header, it's normal that you see a higher bandwitdh.

To validate this theory, you could from the sh interface calculate the average L2 packet size and then remove the 14B of ethernet header to have the average L3 packet size and finally calculate the L3 bandwidth which should be close to your policer configuration.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.1E/native/configuration/guide/qos.html#wp1020010

Also PFC doesn't support shaping so you should replace it by a policer. Shaping is only supporting on FlexWan card.

HTH

Laurent.

Hi Laurent,

Thanks for the info. If i use policing ont the oubound the direction i have an error saying i cannot apply this on the outbound direction. I also use the traffic-shape command and still im not getting my bandwidth straight. What is the usual practice in limiting my interface bandwidth on 6500's ?

 

tnx.

jeff

Hi Jeff,

It seems you are using PFC2 which doesn't support egress policing so that's why you have the error message. Egress Shaping is supported only on OSM and FlexWan Module. To support egress policing, you should upgrade your chassis from a SUP32/PFC2 to a SUP720/PFC3.

Thanks,

Laurent.

Hi Laurent,

So there is no other way i can limit my interface bandwidth?

 

Thanks.

 

jeff

Well you could try implementing your policing on another device in the path if it support it.

Laurent.

Hi Laurent,

I have been having a similar problem.

I am running several 6500 Sup32/PSFC3B and I am not seeing policing happening at all.

policy-map 2MegPolice

class class-default

police 2097000 13000 conform-action transmit exceed-action transmit violate-action drop

And when I check with show policy-map intinterface, I see no packets in the exceed or violate counters.

Any suggestions?

thanks

Ian

Hi Ian,

Do you have more than 2Mbps of traffic sent over the link where your egress policer is applied ?

Laurent.

Hi Laurent, yes we have over 10M as seen by our cacti monitoring.

Hi,

There are some restriction which applies to policer implementation on the PFC:

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/switches/lan/catalyst6500/ios/12.2SXF/native/configuration/guide/qos.html#wp1720400

Let me know if you have any question

Thanks

Laurent.

Laurent,

Can we support egress policing/shaping with SIP/SPA cards facingedge and SUP-32 PFC3 as the processor?

I think egress policing is supported on 7606 we have with SUP-32 PFC3.

Yes. QoS is handled by the SIP in this case so you have more enhanced features.

Laurent.

thanks. and SUP32 won't be a factor here at all? correct as SIP would hanlde it.

1 more Q:

when we apply a nested QoS policy, e.g: with shaping at 3 MB, the child policy bw perctanges will be for the 3 MB shaper not the actual physical interface? do we have to configre BW command at the VLAn interface or subinterface like BW 3 MB to match the shaper?

thanks

policy-map PE-CE-QUEUING ! Queuing policy for PE to CE link

class QOSGROUP5

priority percent 35 ! Voice class gets 35% LLQ

class QOSGROUP3

bandwidth percent 20 ! Critical Data class gets 20% CBWFQ

random-detect discard-class-based ! DC-Based WRED is enabled

random-detect discard-class 0 30 40 10 ! DC 0 is tuned for WRED

random-detect discard-class 1 20 40 10 ! DC 1 is tuned for WRED

class QOSGROUP2

bandwidth percent 15 ! Video class gets 15% CBWFQ

class QOSGROUP1

bandwidth percent 5 ! Bulk class gets 5% CBWFQ

random-detect discard-class-based ! DC-Based WRED is enabled

random-detect discard-class 0 30 40 10 ! DC 0 is tuned for WRED

random-detect discard-class 1 20 40 10 ! DC 1 is tuned for WRED

class QOSGROUP0

bandwidth percent 25 ! Best Effort class gets 25% CBWFQ

random-detect discard-class-based ! DC-Based WRED is enabled

random-detect discard-class 0 30 40 10 ! DC 0 is tuned for WRED

random-detect discard-class 1 20 40 10 ! DC 1 is tuned for WRED

!

!

policy-map PE-CE-SHAPING-QUEUING ! Customer has 3 Mbps CIR over FE

class class-default

shape average 3000000 ! Shaping policy for 3 Mbps CIR

service-policy PE-CE-QUEUING ! Nested queuing policy

Getting Started

Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community:

Innovations in Cisco Full Stack Observability - A new webinar from Cisco