Command Line QOS Tweeking

Unanswered Question
Feb 3rd, 2010
User Badges:


some time ago I implemented a basic parent/child command line QOS policy to help police our internet bandwidth as such: (i've only included the inbound policy details, there is also an outbound policy applied)

policy-map site_inbound_internet_bandwidth
class Customer_Internet_bandwidth_acl
    police 10000000

policy-map qos-in
class class-default
  shape average 40000000
  service-policy site_inbound_internet_bandwidth

The customer has requested that a certain server only be allowed to use 3Mbps of the 10Mbps bandwidth allocated through the police command.

What happens if I enter a 2nd class map underneath "class Customer_Internet_bandwidth_acl"? Would the policy map first apply the police and then apply the new class-map, or would the packets hit the police statement and then be onward routed as they have hit a match in the policy, thereby ignoring the new class-map?

I suppose what I need is a 3rd level of policing e.g. parent, child, 3rd layer?

Any comments or help would be greatly appreciated.



  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Overall Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
Giuseppe Larosa Wed, 02/03/2010 - 13:18
User Badges:
  • Super Silver, 17500 points or more
  • Hall of Fame,

    Founding Member

Hello Christopher,

the order counts like in an IP ACL so you need to rewrite the policy map to put first the new more specific class.

Hope to help


chris morris Sun, 02/07/2010 - 00:31
User Badges:

Hi there - thanks for your response. I'm not sure I was very clear. If I add the more specific staetment in then the child policy would look like this:

policy-map site_inbound_internet_bandwidth

class Customer_specific_server

   police 3000000
class Customer_Internet_bandwidth_acl
    police 10000000

Therefore if I add the more specific statement above wouldn't this then give a potential maximum of 3Mbps for the customer specific server traffic, and 10Mbps for the remaining customer traffic, meaning the customer is getting 13Mbps instead of 10?




This Discussion

Related Content