Router Dead , when i applied QOS on virtual-temp interface for v

Dr.X · ‎01-13-2014

hi all ,

i have a simple brief topology below :

PSTN======(R1-7206)>F1=======F2>(R2-7604 catalyst)>>>F1=========Internet

i have two router

R2========>MLS 7604

R1======>cisco 7204

on R2 , Im doing matching to QOS by dscp , im matching acls ips from internet with dscp values :

here is CONFIG for matching :

Gateway7600#sh policy-map LLQX

Policy Map LLQX

Class YOUTUBE

set ip dscp af43

Class FACEBOOKVIDEOS

set ip dscp af33

Class HTTP

set dscp af23

Class DNSQOS

set dscp af13

Class class-default

set ip dscp af11

================

Gateway7600#sh class-map

Class Map match-all FACEBOOKVIDEOS (id 7)

Match access-group name facebookvideos

Class Map match-all DNSQOS (id 8)

Match access-group name dnsqos

Class Map match-all HTTP (id 6)

Match access-group name browsing

Class Map match-any class-default (id 0)

Match any

Class Map match-all YOUTUBE (id 5)

Match access-group name youtube

Gateway7600#

=========================================================

on this router i applied this policy map on interfaxce F1 in direction

and here matching is well :

Gateway7600#sh policy-map interface gigabitEthernet 1/5 in

GigabitEthernet1/5

Service-policy input: LLQX

class-map: rate-limit (match-all)

Match: access-group name rate-limit

police :

4088000 bps 384000 limit 384000 extended limit

Earl in slot 1 :

139044930 bytes

30 second offered rate 143032 bps

aggregate-forwarded 134420937 bytes action: transmit

exceeded 4623993 bytes action: drop

aggregate-forward 22544 bps exceed 0 bps

class-map: YOUTUBE (match-all)

Match: access-group name youtube

set dscp 38:

Earl in slot 1 :

132693939697 bytes

30 second offered rate 212144928 bps

aggregate-forwarded 132693939697 bytes

class-map: FACEBOOKVIDEOS (match-all)

Match: access-group name facebookvideos

set dscp 30:

Earl in slot 1 :

10726758352 bytes

30 second offered rate 20682720 bps

aggregate-forwarded 10726758352 bytes

class-map: HTTP (match-all)

Match: access-group name browsing

set dscp 22:

Earl in slot 1 :

56874058537 bytes

30 second offered rate 92669832 bps

aggregate-forwarded 56874058537 bytes

class-map: DNSQOS (match-all)

Match: access-group name dnsqos

set dscp 14:

Earl in slot 1 :

160308954 bytes

30 second offered rate 303552 bps

aggregate-forwarded 160308954 bytes

class-map: class-default (match-any)

Match: any

set dscp 10:

Earl in slot 1 :

67394864030 bytes

30 second offered rate 126884864 bps

aggregate-forwarded 67394864030 bytes

=================================================================================

now the problem is below

on router 7200 , it is LNS router connected with LAC roiuter for ADSL customers.

now here is config of policy map on 7200 router:

R11#sh policy-map

Policy Map MATCH_MARKS

Class MATCH_YOUTUBE

bandwidth 220000 (kbps)

Class MATCH_FACEBOOKVIDEOS

bandwidth 20000 (kbps)

Class MATCH_HTTP

bandwidth 100000 (kbps)

=========================================================

R1#sh class-map

Class Map match-all MATCH_FACEBOOKVIDEOS (id 2)

Match ip dscp af33 (30)

Class Map match-all MATCH_HTTP (id 3)

Match ip dscp af23 (22)

Class Map match-any class-default (id 0)

Match any

Class Map match-all MATCH_YOUTUBE (id 1)

Match ip dscp af43 (38)

==========================================================

here is virtual-template interface before i apply the QOS

R1#sh running-config interface virtual-template 1

Building configuration...

Current configuration : 352 bytes

!

interface Virtual-Template1

bandwidth 1000000

ip unnumbered Loopback0

ip tcp adjust-mss 1412

ip policy route-map private

no logging event link-status

qos pre-classify

peer default ip address pool bitsead1 bitsead2

ppp mtu adaptive

ppp authentication pap vpdn

ppp authorization vpdn

ppp accounting vpdn

max-reserved-bandwidth 90

end

=========================================

when i apply the command

(service-poliy output MATCH_MAKRS ) under virtual-template interface i have console logs :

Insufficient bandwidth 149760 kbps for the bandwidth guarantee (220000)

also i have

*Jul 9 22:28:38.242: Interface Virtual-Access2551 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 9 22:28:38.250: Interface Virtual-Access627 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 9 22:28:38.258: Interface Virtual-Access786 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 9 22:28:38.266: Interface Virtual-Access623 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 9 22:28:38.274: Interface Virtual-Access2559 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 9 22:28:38.282: Interface Virtual-Access2281 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 9 22:28:38.290: Interface Virtual-Access142 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 9 22:28:40.262: %SYS-2-INTSCHED: 'suspend' at level 3 -Process= "VTEMPLATE Background Mgr", ipl= 3, pid= 278, -Traceback= 0x756FF0z 0x3439C58z 0x2778D70z 0x2CACCD0z 0x2CC63E0z 0x2CC7FF8z 0x2CADC74z 0x2CBE058z 0x2CA0340z 0x2CA04F8z 0x2E0BB18z 0x2D23378z 0x2D1825Cz 0x2D18738z 0x2E66FE0z 0x2D971ACz

*Jul 9 22:28:40.262: %SYS-2-INTSCHED: 'suspend' at level 3 -Process= "VTEMPLATE Background Mgr", ipl= 3, pid= 278, -Traceback= 0x756FF0z 0x3439C58z 0x2778D70z 0x2CACD28z 0x2CC63E0z 0x2CC7FF8z 0x2CADC74z 0x2CBE058z 0x2CA0340z 0x2CA04F8z 0x2E0BB18z 0x2D23378z 0x2D1825Cz 0x2D18738z 0x2E66FE0z 0x2D971ACz

after i apply it ,

the cpu is 100 % and the router got down !!!

now

what is the problem ????

here is ios for 7200 router

R1#sh version

Cisco IOS Software, 7200 Software (C7200P-ADVENTERPRISEK9-M), Version 12.4(24)T7, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc2)

Technical Support: http://www.cisco.com/techsupport

Compiled Tue 28-Feb-12 12:53 by prod_rel_team

ROM: System Bootstrap, Version 12.4(12.2r)T, RELEASE SOFTWARE (fc1)

Bras1 uptime is 13 weeks, 1 day, 9 hours, 24 minutes

System returned to ROM by reload at 16:24:51 GMT+3 Tue Jun 17 2003

System image file is "disk2:c7200p-adventerprisek9-mz.124-24.T7.bin"

Last reload reason: Reload Command

This product contains cryptographic features and is subject to United

States and local country laws governing import, export, transfer and

use. Delivery of Cisco cryptographic products does not imply

third-party authority to import, export, distribute or use encryption.

Importers, exporters, distributors and users are responsible for

compliance with U.S. and local country laws. By using this product you

agree to comply with applicable laws and regulations. If you are unable

to comply with U.S. and local laws, return this product immediately.

A summary of U.S. laws governing Cisco cryptographic products may be found at:

http://www.cisco.com/wwl/export/crypto/tool/stqrg.html

If you require further assistance please contact us by sending email to

export@cisco.com.

Cisco 7206VXR (NPE-G2) processor (revision A) with 917504K/65536K bytes of memory.

Processor board ID 36858624

MPC7448 CPU at 1666Mhz, Implementation 0, Rev 2.2

6 slot VXR midplane, Version 2.11

Last reset from power-on

PCI bus mb1 (Slots 1, 3 and 5) has a capacity of 600 bandwidth points.

Current configuration on bus mb1 has a total of 0 bandwidth points.

This configuration is within the PCI bus capacity and is supported.

PCI bus mb2 (Slots 2, 4 and 6) has a capacity of 600 bandwidth points.

Current configuration on bus mb2 has a total of 0 bandwidth points.

This configuration is within the PCI bus capacity and is supported.

Please refer to the following document "Cisco 7200 Series Port Adaptor

Hardware Configuration Guidelines" on Cisco.com <http://www.cisco.com>

for c7200 bandwidth points oversubscription and usage guidelines.

1 FastEthernet interface

3 Gigabit Ethernet interfaces

2045K bytes of NVRAM.

250880K bytes of ATA PCMCIA card at slot 2 (Sector size 512 bytes).

65536K bytes of Flash internal SIMM (Sector size 512K).

Configuration register is 0x2102

==============================================================================

wish to Help ASAP

regards

Dr.X · ‎01-14-2014

here is verifying from vi users session :

R1#sh interfaces virtual-access 2 configuration

Virtual-Access2 is an VPDN link (sub)interface

Derived configuration : 506 bytes

!

interface Virtual-Access2

mtu 1460

bandwidth 1000000

ip unnumbered Loopback0

rate-limit input 192000 36000 72000 conform-action continue exceed-action drop

rate-limit output 1120000 210000 420000 conform-action continue exceed-action drop

ip tcp adjust-mss 1412

ip policy route-map private

no logging event link-status

peer default ip address pool xxx xxxxx xxxxxxxx

ppp mtu adaptive

ppp authentication pap vpdn

ppp authorization vpdn

ppp accounting vpdn

max-reserved-bandwidth 90

end

=====

R1# sh interfaces virtual-access 2

Virtual-Access2 is up, line protocol is up

Hardware is Virtual Access interface

Interface is unnumbered. Using address of Loopback0 (ZZZZZZZZ

MTU 1460 bytes, BW 1000000 Kbit/sec, DLY 100000 usec,

reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255

Encapsulation PPP, LCP Open

Open: IPCP

PPPoVPDN vaccess, cloned from AAA, Virtual-Template1

Vaccess status 0x44

Protocol l2tp, tunnel id 20929, session id 42188, loopback not set

Keepalive set (10 sec)

DTR is pulsed for 5 seconds on reset

Last input 00:00:00, output never, output hang never

Last clearing of "show interface" counters 05:52:24

Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 1003

Queueing strategy: fifo (QOS pre-classification)

Output queue: 0/40 (size/max)

5 minute input rate 43000 bits/sec, 36 packets/sec

5 minute output rate 44000 bits/sec, 35 packets/sec

136941 packets input, 19025299 bytes, 0 no buffer

Received 0 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles

0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort

140354 packets output, 50493301 bytes, 0 underruns

0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets

0 unknown protocol drops

0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out

0 carrier transitions

========================================

this is just a sample vi access SESSION , note that i have about 1700 vi access on the router.

hope this config help in tshoot

regards

Joseph W. Doherty · ‎01-14-2014

Disclaimer

The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.

Liability Disclaimer

In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.

Posting

Could you use, or have you tried using, percentages?

Dr.X · ‎01-14-2014

hi ,

i did

the same issue ,

i did a TEST policymap that has 30 percent gurantee

but the same result!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

the router god down agian !

here is logs :

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:33.605: Interface Virtual-Access1896 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:33.797: Interface Virtual-Access1317 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:33.809: Interface Virtual-Access993 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:33.817: Interface Virtual-Access1699 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:33.981: Interface Virtual-Access254 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:33.993: Interface Virtual-Access687 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.001: Interface Virtual-Access35 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.009: Interface Virtual-Access160 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.017: Interface Virtual-Access1337 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.029: Interface Virtual-Access1670 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.037: Interface Virtual-Access1948 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.049: Interface Virtual-Access1669 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.109: Interface Virtual-Access1334 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.117: Interface Virtual-Access151 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.125: Interface Virtual-Access761 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.137: Interface Virtual-Access810 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.197: Interface Virtual-Access1522 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.237: Interface Virtual-Access1692 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.257: Interface Virtual-Access368 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.305: Interface Virtual-Access1758 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.317: Interface Virtual-Access2061 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.325: Interface Virtual-Access1203 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.337: Interface Virtual-Access188 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.345: Interface Virtual-Access1975 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.357: Interface Virtual-Access1172 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.509: Interface Virtual-Access1647 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.517: Interface Virtual-Access458 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.609: Interface Virtual-Access608 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.621: Interface Virtual-Access2128 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.633: Interface Virtual-Access1167 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.641: Interface Virtual-Access487 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.653: Interface Virtual-Access1793 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.665: Interface Virtual-Access2280 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.769: Interface Virtual-Access839 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.781: Interface Virtual-Access2311 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.793: Interface Virtual-Access1788 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.857: Interface Virtual-Access8 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.869: Interface Virtual-Access2243 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:34.881: Interface Virtual-Access580 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:35.057: Interface Virtual-Access6 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:35.065: Interface Virtual-Access1331 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:35.077: Interface Virtual-Access1235 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:35.177: Interface Virtual-Access1748 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:35.189: Interface Virtual-Access2262 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

*Jul 11 02:40:35.205: Interface Virtual-Access2136 max_reserved_bandwidth config will not

take effect on the queueing features configured via service-policy

i want to ask a question , could this be from IOS ????

Joseph W. Doherty · ‎01-14-2014

Disclaimer

The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.

Liability Disclaimer

In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.

Posting

Try removing "max-reserved-bandwidth 90", under your "interface Virtual-Template1".

Dr.X · ‎01-14-2014

Hi ,

Mr JOSEPH ,

thanks alot for reply and intersting

1st of all ,

it failed before and after i put the bandwidth command

and

max-reserved-bandwidth 90 command

========================================================================

after alot of investigation in the issue ,

i found that i cant apply qos under the virtual template interface

because each vi has its rate limit commands that is gived from radius attribute AAA

as an example above:

rate-limit input 192000 36000 72000 conform-action continue exceed-action drop

rate-limit output 1120000 210000 420000 conform-action continue exceed-action drop

those two commands are given from AAA radius , and as a result we cant use service policy for all vi access with different speeds ,

i will try the follwoign solution

i found that radius attribtue can give the vi access a service policy command

i will try it and if it succeeded i will give u a reply ,

also , if you find a more easy solution for me for my issue above plz tell me it

regards

Joseph W. Doherty · ‎01-15-2014

Disclaimer

The Author of this posting offers the information contained within this posting without consideration and with the reader's understanding that there's no implied or expressed suitability or fitness for any purpose. Information provided is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as rendering professional advice of any kind. Usage of this posting's information is solely at reader's own risk.

Liability Disclaimer

In no event shall Author be liable for any damages whatsoever (including, without limitation, damages for loss of use, data or profit) arising out of the use or inability to use the posting's information even if Author has been advised of the possibility of such damage.

Posting

Ah, passing bandwidths via RADIUS - yea, that's a factoid worth knowing.

So, when I asked about using bandwidth percentages, you replaced all absolute values with percentages? You also removed the max-bandwidth statement?

Unfortunately, a virtual template is one of the interfaces that's I have worked QoS on, and QoS features are often tied to "kinds" of interfaces often, but not always, improved in later IOS versions.

Dr.X · ‎01-15-2014

hi ,

actually no

i applied percentages wihout max bandwidht gurtantee removal ,

but i applied bw values with exit of gurantee removal

both failed !

================================

but you didnt tell me to update the ios ??

is ios 15 is better ?

==================================================

actually i dont want to down my router agian , it is on production network and all my pvc users will go down agian !

=================================

now im migrating to distibute service policy from AAA radius and i will use shape instead of rate-limit like the above.

=============

plz give me ur opinion for rate-limit command ? is it suitable for adsl customers ??

as i understand rate-limit==policing

but shaping is better than policing , especailly for customers

1st thing i will try shaping with bw gurantee,

but if it got more my LNS consuption resources , i will go to policing with bw gurantee

you can see my next questiion here about shaping with bw gurtantee in the same time :

https://supportforums.cisco.com/message/4138322#4138322

agian ,

thanks alot for time and cooperation

with my best regards

Dr.X · ‎01-18-2014

ohhhh god ,

another new problems agian !!

plz follow my question in radius attribute service policy !!!

https://supportforums.cisco.com/message/4141588#4141588

it cant access shaping and bw command !!

regards

Router Dead , when i applied QOS on virtual-temp interface for vpn !!