4500 Sup6E priority queue on port-channel member

Unanswered Question
Mar 19th, 2010

I am trying to implement priority queuing (LLQ) on a pair of 10GE links between a 4507 with Sup6E and a 4948 which are configured as an etherchannel. I am unable to configure a priority queue on the 4507.  I am running into the following issues:

  • I want to have a priority queue for voice traffic and specify minimum bandwidth for a critical application. If I configure a class with the priority command it will not let me use the bandwidth command on another class unless the priority class is policed. If I try it without the police command I get the message "bandwidth kbps/percent command cannot co-exist with strict priority in the same policy-map ". If I add  a police statement to the priority class then I don't get this error.

  • When I try to apply the resulting service-policy to the physical interface it says "% A service-policy with non-queuing actions should be attached to the port-channel associated with this physical port" and does not add the command to the config.

  • If I try to associate the same policy-map to the port-channel rather than the physical interface it says "% A service-policy with queuing actions can be attached in output direction only on physical ports" and does not add the command to the config.

All of the other interfaces on the 4500 are working OK. The trunks have auto qos voip trust configured and access ports are marking the critical application traffic.

The 4507 is running 12.2(44)SG1 EnterpriseK9. I don't have the luxury to upgrade blindly to fix the problem unless I can identify a specific bug that is causing the problem. Can anyone help?

Thanks

I have this problem too.
0 votes
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Average Rating: 0 (0 ratings)
tmacdonald@cisi... Fri, 03/19/2010 - 08:08

I did some further testing. The problem is related to the police command being needed for a priority queue but not being supported on a port-channel member, even if the port-channel and interafaces are shutdown. If I removed the police and priority commands from the class and configured bandwidth instead then I was able to apply the policy to the physical interface in the port-channel. If I then tried to change the applied policy to add the police command I got:

police command is not supported for this interface
The interface does not support the specified policy configuration and/or parameter values.

I tried different police options and none of them worked while the policy was applied to the interface.

I then removed  the 10GE interfaces from the port-channel and was able to apply the service policy to them, even with the police and policy commands. I was then able to configure the ports back into the port-channel. Unfortunately when I did this the interfaces were suspended and did not come up.

It therefore appears that it is not possible to have a priority queue on a port-channel on the 4500 Sup6E running this image.

kfccolonel Thu, 04/08/2010 - 20:14

You have it right sort of...police on the port-channel and queue on the member links.

This is an edited version for an example:

interface Port-channel1
service-policy output SUP6E-EGRESS-POLICER
!
interface TenGigabitEthernet5/1
channel-protocol pagp
channel-group 1 mode desirable
service-policy output SUP6E-EGRESS-QUEUING
!
interface TenGigabitEthernet6/1
channel-protocol pagp
channel-group 1 mode desirable
service-policy output SUP6E-EGRESS-QUEUING

!

!
policy-map SUP6E-EGRESS-POLICER
class PRIORITY-QUEUE
    police cir 3000000000
      conform-action transmit
      exceed-action drop
!
!
policy-map SUP6E-EGRESS-QUEUING
class PRIORITY-QUEUE
    priority
class CONTROL-MGMT-QUEUE
    bandwidth remaining percent 10
class MULTIMEDIA-CONFERENCING-QUEUE
    bandwidth remaining percent 5
class MULTIMEDIA-STREAMING-QUEUE
    bandwidth remaining percent 5
class TRANSACTIONAL-QUEUE
    bandwidth remaining percent 15
    dbl
class BULK-QUEUE
    bandwidth remaining percent 5
    dbl
class SCAVENGER-QUEUE
    bandwidth remaining percent 5
    dbl
class class-default
    bandwidth remaining percent 25
    dbl

Hope that example helps.

Stelli3006 Tue, 01/03/2012 - 03:32

hello,

could you help me please regarding upper question. In your example on portchannel configuration you have policy

SUP6E-EGRESS-POLICER which polices priority traffic to 3Gbps, right ?

Does that give 3Gig to priority traffic comparing to 20Gig (which is portchannel capacity) meaning 1.5Gig on each port or does that give 3Gig for priority traffic on each interface (3Gig on one, 3 Gig on other).

Question is basically what is this cir parameter, when you have portchannel bundle, based on ? Physical interface bandwidth or bundle bandwidth) ?

regards

cristi_iconaru Thu, 06/28/2012 - 02:43

Hi,

have you managed to solve this issue?

I tried kfccolonel config but still the port gets suspended.

Thanks.

cristi_iconaru Fri, 06/29/2012 - 02:52

Hi,

have you managed to solve this issue?

I tried kfccolonel config but still the port gets suspended.

Thanks.

Actions

Login or Register to take actions

This Discussion

Posted March 19, 2010 at 4:50 AM
Stats:
Replies:5 Avg. Rating:
Views:3424 Votes:0
Shares:0
Categories: Switches
+

Related Content

Discussions Leaderboard

Rank Username Points
1 15,012
2 8,155
3 7,745
4 7,088
5 6,752
Rank Username Points
135
88
80
74
38