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
40 MPLS link, eh? And the interface hand-off has how much bandwidth? If it's more than your 40 MPLS, you often need to shape (also as I don't believe most shapers account for L2 overhead, shape about 15% slower).
Ah, I wouldn't recommend using a LLQ class for bulk traffic. Would recommend a non-LLQ class with an explicit policer or shaper (I generally recommend shaping, over policing, when its available).
You might find, if you shape for your bandwidth, your existing FQ in class-default might preclude the need for a special class for your FTP/NetBIOS traffic.
If that's not sufficient, then you can define a class for it, like you've done, but just provide it a minimum bandwidth guarantee. For bulk classes, I've often used 1%. Even with 1%, such traffic can still use all available bandwidth, but it "moves aside" for other traffic. (My thinking is, I'm paying for the bandwidth, use it if I can, but don't let bulk stuff be adverse to non-bulk traffic.)
