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

Attention: The Community will be in read-only mode on 12/14/2017 from 12:00 am pacific to 11:30 am.

During this time you will only be able to see content. Other interactions such as posting, replying to questions, or marking content as helpful will be disabled for few hours.

We apologize for the inconvenience while we perform important updates to the Community.

New Member

Remarking eigrp packets to precedence 3, is it possible?

Hi People,

I have a DMVPN with 100 spokes and two hubs over MPLS. I have eigrp over encrypted gre and I notice that I have a lot of hold time expired for some spokes. First I think I should increase hold time from 15secs to 60secs since this is a wan link. Is this a good idea?

2nd, my provider only treats preferably packets matched with precedence 3 and everything else is remarked to 0.

So I would like to remark eigrp packets generated from the spoke router to precedence 3. Is this possible?

I tried a policy with match protocol eigrp, set precedence 3, but I don't see any matches.

class-map match-any preced-3
match protocol eigrp

policy-map new_branch_policy
  class preced-3
    bandwidth percent 50
   set precedence 3

7 REPLIES
Cisco Employee

Re: Remarking eigrp packets to precedence 3, is it possible?

Hi,

Yes, it is possible to remark eigrp packets. Which interface did you apply the policy-map? On what platform?

I think you try to increase the hold timer and leave the hello timer as default, see if that helps.

Regards,

Lei Tian

New Member

Re: Remarking eigrp packets to precedence 3, is it possible?

ok, i think i made a mistake by applying the policy map on the physical outbound interface.

However since the eigrp gets encrypted I think it should be applied on the dmvpn tunnel interface.

My only problem is that the tunnel interface doesn't accept service-policy.

So how can I remark eigrp packets generated from the same router before they leave the outbound interface?

Cisco Employee

Re: Remarking eigrp packets to precedence 3, is it possible?

Yes, apply on physical interface will not match eigrp packets.

Tunnel  is a logical interface,  there is no tx-ring to generate back pressure  for software queueing to kick in. You cannot CBWFQ on tunnel interface.  Remove the bandwidth statement and then apply the policy-map on tunnel  should be fine.

If you want use CBWFQ, then you have to use HQOS.

Regards,

Lei Tian

Re: Remarking eigrp packets to precedence 3, is it possible?

if you apply it on the physical, you could use qos preclassify command on the physical. The 'qos pre-classify' command configures the IOS to make a temporary copy of the IP packet before it is encapsulated or encrypted so that the service policy on the (egress) interface can do its classification based on the original (inner) IP packet fields rather than the encapsulating (outer) IP packet header.

Francisco

New Member

Re: Remarking eigrp packets to precedence 3, is it possible?

qos preclassify is on on the tunnel interface. on the physical is not possible to add it.

the service-policy command is not accepted at all at the tunnel interface (this is mgre interface, on gre I could put it)

I get % Invalid input detected at '^' marker. IOS is adv security 124-22.T5 on 2811

Cisco Employee

Re: Remarking eigrp packets to precedence 3, is it possible?

Yes, starts from 12.4(22)T, the DMVPN QOS model has changed to per-tunnel qos. The remarking policy need to be configured on hub site. See the configuration example.

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/sec_secure_connectivity/configuration/guide/sec_per_tunnel_qos_ps10592_TSD_Products_Configuration_Guide_Chapter.html#wp1054152

Regards

Lei Tian

Cisco Employee

Re: Remarking eigrp packets to precedence 3, is it possible?

Just tested another way do remark EIGRP packet. Apply policy-map on physical interface use follwing config.

class-map REMARK

match ip dscp 48

policy-map REMARK

class REMARK

set ip prec 3

int X/X physical interace

service-policy out REMARK

Regards,

Lei Tian

718
Views
0
Helpful
7
Replies
CreatePlease to create content