05-08-2010 12:50 AM - edited 03-04-2019 08:24 AM
A company that I am doing some work for has an MPLS VPN between their offices in the US and Europe. They are having some Video Conference QoS issues and I believe one of their problems related to the differences in the circuit bandwidth between the two sites.
What I want to do is decrease MAX rate of the dual bonded E1s to match that of the dual T1s so that the routers QoS policy calculations are the same at both sites.
Would it be better to use rate-limit or traffic-shape here? Also, should this be applied to the multilink interface or the individual interfaces?
Any other recommendations would be appreciated as well.
Thanks,
-Jeff
Solved! Go to Solution.
05-08-2010 03:17 AM
There is absolutely no need to decrease speed on the E1 side, nor shape traffic.
What is needed, is a complete analysis of the problem, done by an expert and in collboration with the SP.
05-08-2010 01:00 AM
Hello Jeff,
use a policy-map using the shape action this allows to invoke a child policy that implements queueing
the parent policy has to be applied to the only L3 object that is the multilink interface
something like:
policy-map shape_to_2T1
class class-default
shape 2800000
service child-queues
policy-map child-queues
class voice
priority 400
class videoconf
bandwidth 1000
class dataplus
bandwidth 300
class class-default
fair-queue
note: shaping commands use bps, priority and bandwidth use kbps
int multi1
service out shape_to_2T1
Hope to help
Giuseppe
05-08-2010 03:17 AM
There is absolutely no need to decrease speed on the E1 side, nor shape traffic.
What is needed, is a complete analysis of the problem, done by an expert and in collboration with the SP.
05-08-2010 11:14 AM
OK... Can you please explain to me why you think rate limiting the E1 side would not be beneficial?
I have been called in by the customer to work with the service provider on this issue. The SP has failed to deliver the customer a satisfactory product for over 6 months now. All routers are SP managed. After reviewing all of the router configurations there are some things that I call into question. One of them is the imbalance on the E1side of the pipe.
-Jeff
05-08-2010 01:24 PM
Because such a small unbalance will not affect a properly configured QoS.
However if SP is not collaborating all bets are off and you may have better resuslts with a good VPN instead.
05-10-2010 08:47 AM
Thank you!
And FYI SP is involved...
08-11-2011 01:16 PM
I know it has been quite some time since the original post. Just wanted to follow up with what was happening here.
The company was running for a couple of years on a single T1 from Sprint. When Sprint ordered the 2nd T1 for the bonded link it was not over the same physical path as the original circuit. The result was a difference in latency of about 30ms between the 2 circuits. Once the circuit was moved to follow the same path, everything worked properly.
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: