if you want the "less effect" on customer traffic, go with the "gentler" kind qos implementation, which is shaping. policing will just tail-drop any excess bandwidth. shaping on the other hand queues excess traffic and send it at a desired constant rate:
Can you both shape and police at the same level? Unsure, but seems counterproductive. If your configuration can be actually implemented, I would expect the shaper with its slightly lessor bandwidth configuration to keep the policer from activation. (Their Tc values, depending on their defaults, might permit the policer to limit traffic before the shaper buffers it.)
I Put shaper at 30Mbps and policer at 32 Mbps , so that the policer will not be active and at the same time excess traffic will be shaped to 30Mbps . If I apply Only policing it's affecting very badly to customer traffic
Not unexpected a policer treats customer traffic badly. Since you have the shaper, now, I don't think it makes sense to continue to use the policer. If you remove the policer, don't forget, you might set the shaper for 32 Mbps.
Ah, well that's a much better question. Understand your confusion.
It appears, both the shaper and your policer are measuring traffic independently, and with the policer default Bc (1024000 bytes) being larger than the shaper's default Bc (96000 bytes), I wouldn't expect the behavior you're seeing. If the converse was true, I would expect it.
Unless we're looking at a bug, the packets the policer is "unexpectly" dropping probably don't indicate complete failure of the shaper. I suspect there's a good change you still don't need the policer.
The policer drops might be caused by some sync issue between the shaper's bandwidth measurement and the policer's bandwidth measurement. Or, it might be caused by the fact that the shaper has a non-zero Be, although my understanding Be should only be used with peak shaping not average shaping. However, you could explicity set the shaper's Be to zero and see if that results in different behavior. You could also try a 10 ms Tc for the shaper rather than the default 25 ms, or might try having both the shaper and policer with the same Bc.
Again, though, chances are good, that the policer drops are due to some interplay between how the policer measures bandwidth vs. the how the shaper measures bandwidth and for practical purposes, there's no reason you shouldn't be able to use just the shaper.
If you do try some of the other changes I suggested, and results still don't make sense and you think it's imporant, I would then suggest Cisco's TAC.
Hi everyone, I would like to thank you in advance for any help you can provide a newcomer like myself!
Im studying the 100-105 book by Odom and am currently on the topic of Port security. I purchased a used 2960 and I'm trying to follow a...
While deploying a number of 18xx/2802/3802 model access points (APs), which run AP-COS as their operating platform. It can be observed on some occasions that while many of their access points were able to join the fabric WLC withou...
I am going to design and build an LAN network under a tunnel underground with long distance between the switches.
I will have 2 Catalyst switches and 8 Industrial IE3000, and they will be connected with fiber.
For now I am planning on use Layer-2 s...