I created the following policy:
bandwidth percent 12
police 17408000 conform-action transmit exceed-action drop
bandwidth percent 60
bandwidth percent 3
police 3072000 conform-action transmit exceed-action drop
This is on 100Mb connection between two locations. I want Branches to get 12mb minimum and police at 17Mb. The DR site I want to guarantee 60Mb, and the Dallas location I want to guarantee 3Mb but no more than 3Mb. Does the above look like it would work?
What I'm suggesting, if you provide minimum bandwidth guarantees for all traffic that needs it, you shouldn't need to cap any traffic. The whole idea of providing traffic minimum bandwidth guarantees is so they continue to work as needed even when the link is saturated.
I often work with WAN links that run VoIP, vidconferencing, mission critical business apps, normal business apps and system backups. Such links might run at 100% utilization (generally due to system backups) for hours (and during normal business hours), yet QoS allows all the other apps to function as if the backup wasn't running.
If your QoS can insure traffic does obtain the proportion of bandwidth the application needs when there's congestion, there generally little need to cap bandwidth for any traffic.
So you might try:
bandwidth percent 1
bandwidth percent 7
bandwidth percent 30
bandwidth percent 10
(NB: if your wondering about the reduced percentages, it's the ratios that are really used [they set flow weights], and it also avoids busting the reserved bandwidth setting [remaining percent is another nicer option - if supported by the IOS] along with be easier to use on other bandwidth capacity links.)
BTW, with QoS link "saturation" often isn't the issue it is without QoS.
The bandwidth statement guarantees a minimum, i.e. you shouldn't need to police or shape unless you really need to also cap the bandwidth.
Yes, shape should work in lieu of police.