Cisco Support Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

QOS service policy Vs naming

Dear all,

I often try to use a meaningful names for a service policy under interfaces. sometimes, the policy needs to be upgraded. This means that my 10MB_OUT policy for example needs to be renamed to 20MB_OUT.

Can this be dealt with in an efficient manner? of course I could make naming different, so I simmply change the policy and not the naming,but then naming is no longer meaningful.

Any thoughts / suggestions ?


Hall of Fame Super Bronze

Re: QOS service policy Vs naming

That is the drawback of using meaningful names.

If you plan to continuously change the service-policy then I recommend using a more generic name like WAN_QOS for WAN interfaces and LAN_QOS for LAN interfaces, just don't use the bandwidth being allocated to the interface as part of the name.

Re: QOS service policy Vs naming

Thanks Edison !

Super Bronze

Re: QOS service policy Vs naming

If the policy is defined with explict bandwidth rate allocations, then names such as 10MB_OUT or 20MB_OUT make sense. However, if bandwidth allocations are defined with percentages, then just have them named generally (like Edison's suggestion WAN_QOS) or perhaps functionally, e.g. HQ_OUT, BRANCH_OUT (i.e. where bandwidth percentages and/or classes used differ).

Sometimes you might want to use both approaches. For example, a parent policy that shapes for a certain link capacity is named for that capacity (e.g. Shape1500Kb, Shape512Kb) while a subordinate policy is functionally named (BranchOfficeAppsP-2-P, BranchOfficeAppsMPLS1).

CreatePlease login to create content