QOS service policy Vs naming

Unanswered Question
Sep 14th, 2009
User Badges:
  • Gold, 750 points or more

Dear all,

I often try to use a meaningful names for a service policy under interfaces. sometimes, the policy needs to be upgraded. This means that my 10MB_OUT policy for example needs to be renamed to 20MB_OUT.

Can this be dealt with in an efficient manner? of course I could make naming different, so I simmply change the policy and not the naming,but then naming is no longer meaningful.

Any thoughts / suggestions ?


  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 4 (1 ratings)
Edison Ortiz Mon, 09/14/2009 - 07:30
User Badges:
  • Super Bronze, 10000 points or more
  • Hall of Fame,

    Founding Member

That is the drawback of using meaningful names.

If you plan to continuously change the service-policy then I recommend using a more generic name like WAN_QOS for WAN interfaces and LAN_QOS for LAN interfaces, just don't use the bandwidth being allocated to the interface as part of the name.

Joseph W. Doherty Tue, 09/15/2009 - 05:10
User Badges:
  • Super Bronze, 10000 points or more

If the policy is defined with explict bandwidth rate allocations, then names such as 10MB_OUT or 20MB_OUT make sense. However, if bandwidth allocations are defined with percentages, then just have them named generally (like Edison's suggestion WAN_QOS) or perhaps functionally, e.g. HQ_OUT, BRANCH_OUT (i.e. where bandwidth percentages and/or classes used differ).

Sometimes you might want to use both approaches. For example, a parent policy that shapes for a certain link capacity is named for that capacity (e.g. Shape1500Kb, Shape512Kb) while a subordinate policy is functionally named (BranchOfficeAppsP-2-P, BranchOfficeAppsMPLS1).


This Discussion