09-14-2009 01:38 AM - edited 03-04-2019 06:02 AM
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 ?
Sam
09-14-2009 07:30 AM
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.
09-15-2009 12:49 AM
Thanks Edison !
09-15-2009 05:10 AM
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).
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: