cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
272
Views
4
Helpful
3
Replies

QOS service policy Vs naming

cisco_lad2004
Level 5
Level 5

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

3 Replies 3

Edison Ortiz
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

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.

Thanks Edison !

Joseph W. Doherty
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame

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).

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: