
- •QoS Overview
- •“Do I Know This Already?” Quiz
- •QoS: Tuning Bandwidth, Delay, Jitter, and Loss Questions
- •Foundation Topics
- •QoS: Tuning Bandwidth, Delay, Jitter, and Loss
- •Bandwidth
- •The clock rate Command Versus the bandwidth Command
- •QoS Tools That Affect Bandwidth
- •Delay
- •Serialization Delay
- •Propagation Delay
- •Queuing Delay
- •Forwarding Delay
- •Shaping Delay
- •Network Delay
- •Delay Summary
- •QoS Tools That Affect Delay
- •Jitter
- •QoS Tools That Affect Jitter
- •Loss
- •QoS Tools That Affect Loss
- •Summary: QoS Characteristics: Bandwidth, Delay, Jitter, and Loss
- •Voice Basics
- •Voice Bandwidth Considerations
- •Voice Delay Considerations
- •Voice Jitter Considerations
- •Voice Loss Considerations
- •Video Basics
- •Video Bandwidth Considerations
- •Video Delay Considerations
- •Video Jitter Considerations
- •Video Loss Considerations
- •Comparing Voice and Video: Summary
- •IP Data Basics
- •Data Bandwidth Considerations
- •Data Delay Considerations
- •Data Jitter Considerations
- •Data Loss Considerations
- •Comparing Voice, Video, and Data: Summary
- •Foundation Summary
- •QoS Tools and Architectures
- •“Do I Know This Already?” Quiz
- •QoS Tools Questions
- •Differentiated Services Questions
- •Integrated Services Questions
- •Foundation Topics
- •Introduction to IOS QoS Tools
- •Queuing
- •Queuing Tools
- •Shaping and Policing
- •Shaping and Policing Tools
- •Congestion Avoidance
- •Congestion-Avoidance Tools
- •Call Admission Control and RSVP
- •CAC Tools
- •Management Tools
- •Summary
- •The Good-Old Common Sense QoS Model
- •GOCS Flow-Based QoS
- •GOCS Class-Based QoS
- •The Differentiated Services QoS Model
- •DiffServ Per-Hop Behaviors
- •The Class Selector PHB and DSCP Values
- •The Assured Forwarding PHB and DSCP Values
- •The Expedited Forwarding PHB and DSCP Values
- •The Integrated Services QoS Model
- •Foundation Summary
- •“Do I Know This Already?” Quiz Questions
- •CAR, PBR, and CB Marking Questions
- •Foundation Topics
- •Marking
- •IP Header QoS Fields: Precedence and DSCP
- •LAN Class of Service (CoS)
- •Other Marking Fields
- •Summary of Marking Fields
- •Class-Based Marking (CB Marking)
- •Network-Based Application Recognition (NBAR)
- •CB Marking show Commands
- •CB Marking Summary
- •Committed Access Rate (CAR)
- •CAR Marking Summary
- •Policy-Based Routing (PBR)
- •PBR Marking Summary
- •VoIP Dial Peer
- •VoIP Dial-Peer Summary
- •Foundation Summary
- •Congestion Management
- •“Do I Know This Already?” Quiz
- •Queuing Concepts Questions
- •WFQ and IP RTP Priority Questions
- •CBWFQ and LLQ Questions
- •Comparing Queuing Options Questions
- •Foundation Topics
- •Queuing Concepts
- •Output Queues, TX Rings, and TX Queues
- •Queuing on Interfaces Versus Subinterfaces and Virtual Circuits (VCs)
- •Summary of Queuing Concepts
- •Queuing Tools
- •FIFO Queuing
- •Priority Queuing
- •Custom Queuing
- •Weighted Fair Queuing (WFQ)
- •WFQ Scheduler: The Net Effect
- •WFQ Scheduling: The Process
- •WFQ Drop Policy, Number of Queues, and Queue Lengths
- •WFQ Summary
- •Class-Based WFQ (CBWFQ)
- •CBWFQ Summary
- •Low Latency Queuing (LLQ)
- •LLQ with More Than One Priority Queue
- •IP RTP Priority
- •Summary of Queuing Tool Features
- •Foundation Summary
- •Conceptual Questions
- •Priority Queuing and Custom Queuing
- •CBWFQ, LLQ, IP RTP Priority
- •Comparing Queuing Tool Options
- •“Do I Know This Already?” Quiz
- •Shaping and Policing Concepts Questions
- •Policing with CAR and CB Policer Questions
- •Shaping with FRTS, GTS, DTS, and CB Shaping
- •Foundation Topics
- •When and Where to Use Shaping and Policing
- •How Shaping Works
- •Where to Shape: Interfaces, Subinterfaces, and VCs
- •How Policing Works
- •CAR Internals
- •CB Policing Internals
- •Policing, but Not Discarding
- •Foundation Summary
- •Shaping and Policing Concepts
- •“Do I Know This Already?” Quiz
- •Congestion-Avoidance Concepts and RED Questions
- •WRED Questions
- •FRED Questions
- •Foundation Topics
- •TCP and UDP Reactions to Packet Loss
- •Tail Drop, Global Synchronization, and TCP Starvation
- •Random Early Detection (RED)
- •Weighted RED (WRED)
- •How WRED Weights Packets
- •WRED and Queuing
- •WRED Summary
- •Flow-Based WRED (FRED)
- •Foundation Summary
- •Congestion-Avoidance Concepts and Random Early Detection (RED)
- •Weighted RED (WRED)
- •Flow-Based WRED (FRED)
- •“Do I Know This Already?” Quiz
- •Compression Questions
- •Link Fragmentation and Interleave Questions
- •Foundation Topics
- •Payload and Header Compression
- •Payload Compression
- •Header Compression
- •Link Fragmentation and Interleaving
- •Multilink PPP LFI
- •Maximum Serialization Delay and Optimum Fragment Sizes
- •Frame Relay LFI Using FRF.12
- •Choosing Fragment Sizes for Frame Relay
- •Fragmentation with More Than One VC on a Single Access Link
- •FRF.11-C and FRF.12 Comparison
- •Foundation Summary
- •Compression Tools
- •LFI Tools
- •“Do I Know This Already?” Quiz
- •Foundation Topics
- •Call Admission Control Overview
- •Call Rerouting Alternatives
- •Bandwidth Engineering
- •CAC Mechanisms
- •CAC Mechanism Evaluation Criteria
- •Local Voice CAC
- •Physical DS0 Limitation
- •Max-Connections
- •Voice over Frame Relay—Voice Bandwidth
- •Trunk Conditioning
- •Local Voice Busyout
- •Measurement-Based Voice CAC
- •Service Assurance Agents
- •SAA Probes Versus Pings
- •SAA Service
- •Calculated Planning Impairment Factor
- •Advanced Voice Busyout
- •PSTN Fallback
- •SAA Probes Used for PSTN Fallback
- •IP Destination Caching
- •SAA Probe Format
- •PSTN Fallback Scalability
- •PSTN Fallback Summary
- •Resource-Based CAC
- •Resource Availability Indication
- •Gateway Calculation of Resources
- •RAI in Service Provider Networks
- •RAI in Enterprise Networks
- •RAI Operation
- •RAI Platform Support
- •Cisco CallManager Resource-Based CAC
- •Location-Based CAC Operation
- •Locations and Regions
- •Calculation of Resources
- •Automatic Alternate Routing
- •Location-Based CAC Summary
- •Gatekeeper Zone Bandwidth
- •Gatekeeper Zone Bandwidth Operation
- •Single-Zone Topology
- •Multizone Topology
- •Zone-per-Gateway Design
- •Gatekeeper in CallManager Networks
- •Zone Bandwidth Calculation
- •Gatekeeper Zone Bandwidth Summary
- •Integrated Services / Resource Reservation Protocol
- •RSVP Levels of Service
- •RSVP Operation
- •RSVP/H.323 Synchronization
- •Bandwidth per Codec
- •Subnet Bandwidth Management
- •Monitoring and Troubleshooting RSVP
- •RSVP CAC Summary
- •Foundation Summary
- •Call Admission Control Concepts
- •Local-Based CAC
- •Measurement-Based CAC
- •Resources-Based CAC
- •“Do I Know This Already?” Quiz
- •QoS Management Tools Questions
- •QoS Design Questions
- •Foundation Topics
- •QoS Management Tools
- •QoS Device Manager
- •QoS Policy Manager
- •Service Assurance Agent
- •Internetwork Performance Monitor
- •Service Management Solution
- •QoS Management Tool Summary
- •QoS Design for the Cisco QoS Exams
- •Four-Step QoS Design Process
- •Step 1: Determine Customer Priorities/QoS Policy
- •Step 2: Characterize the Network
- •Step 3: Implement the Policy
- •Step 4: Monitor the Network
- •QoS Design Guidelines for Voice and Video
- •Voice and Video: Bandwidth, Delay, Jitter, and Loss Requirements
- •Voice and Video QoS Design Recommendations
- •Foundation Summary
- •QoS Management
- •QoS Design
- •“Do I Know This Already?” Quiz
- •Foundation Topics
- •The Need for QoS on the LAN
- •Layer 2 Queues
- •Drop Thresholds
- •Trust Boundries
- •Cisco Catalyst Switch QoS Features
- •Catalyst 6500 QoS Features
- •Supervisor and Switching Engine
- •Policy Feature Card
- •Ethernet Interfaces
- •QoS Flow on the Catalyst 6500
- •Ingress Queue Scheduling
- •Layer 2 Switching Engine QoS Frame Flow
- •Layer 3 Switching Engine QoS Packet Flow
- •Egress Queue Scheduling
- •Catalyst 6500 QoS Summary
- •Cisco Catalyst 4500/4000 QoS Features
- •Supervisor Engine I and II
- •Supervisor Engine III and IV
- •Cisco Catalyst 3550 QoS Features
- •Cisco Catalyst 3524 QoS Features
- •CoS-to-Egress Queue Mapping for the Catalyst OS Switch
- •Layer-2-to-Layer 3 Mapping
- •Connecting a Catalyst OS Switch to WAN Segments
- •Displaying QoS Settings for the Catalyst OS Switch
- •Enabling QoS for the Catalyst IOS Switch
- •Enabling Priority Queuing for the Catalyst IOS Switch
- •CoS-to-Egress Queue Mapping for the Catalyst IOS Switch
- •Layer 2-to-Layer 3 Mapping
- •Connecting a Catalyst IOS Switch to Distribution Switches or WAN Segments
- •Displaying QoS Settings for the Catalyst IOS Switch
- •Foundation Summary
- •LAN QoS Concepts
- •Catalyst 6500 Series of Switches
- •Catalyst 4500/4000 Series of Switches
- •Catalyst 3550/3524 Series of Switches
- •QoS: Tuning Bandwidth, Delay, Jitter, and Loss
- •QoS Tools
- •Differentiated Services
- •Integrated Services
- •CAR, PBR, and CB Marking
- •Queuing Concepts
- •WFQ and IP RTP Priority
- •CBWFQ and LLQ
- •Comparing Queuing Options
- •Conceptual Questions
- •Priority Queuing and Custom Queuing
- •CBWFQ, LLQ, IP RTP Priority
- •Comparing Queuing Tool Options
- •Shaping and Policing Concepts
- •Policing with CAR and CB Policer
- •Shaping with FRTS, GTS, DTS, and CB Shaping
- •Shaping and Policing Concepts
- •Congestion-Avoidance Concepts and RED
- •WRED
- •FRED
- •Congestion-Avoidance Concepts and Random Early Detection (RED)
- •Weighted RED (WRED)
- •Flow-Based WRED (FRED)
- •Compression
- •Link Fragmentation and Interleave
- •Compression Tools
- •LFI Tools
- •Call Admission Control Concepts
- •Local-Based CAC
- •Measurement-Based CAC
- •Resources-Based CAC
- •QoS Management Tools
- •QoS Design
- •QoS Management
- •QoS Design
- •LAN QoS Concepts
- •Catalyst 6500 Series of Switches
- •Catalyst 4500/4000 Series of Switches
- •Catalyst 3550/3524 Series of Switches
- •Foundation Topics
- •QPPB Route Marking: Step 1
- •QPPB Per-Packet Marking: Step 2
- •QPPB: The Hidden Details
- •QPPB Summary
- •Flow-Based dWFQ
- •ToS-Based dWFQ
- •Distributed QoS Group–Based WFQ
- •Summary: dWFQ Options

Introduction to IOS QoS Tools 93
Chapter 4, “Congestion Management,” covers each of the queuing tools in detail.
Shaping and Policing
Because shaping and policing provide two different functions, you may wonder why shaping and policing are covered here at the same time. The simple answer is this: Networks that use policing typically need shaping as well. Also both shaping and policing measure the rates at which traffic is sent and received in a network, so some of the underlying features are similar. Both can be described using similar metaphors of “token buckets.” Finally, from a business perspective, shaping and policing are typically implemented at or near the edge between an enterprise and a service provider. Therefore, when considering whether you need to use one type of tool, you need to be thinking about the other type.
Traffic shaping, or shaping, delays packets by putting packets in a queue, even when real bandwidth is available. It’s like being at the bank. A teller finishes with a customer, and you’re next in line. You have to wait another minute or two, however, while the teller finishes doing some paperwork for the preceding customer. Why would a router ever want to delay packets? Well, the short answer is “because delaying these packets is better than what happens if you don’t delay them.” Figure 2-4 shows just one example where shaping is useful.
Figure 2-4 Sample Network, Speed Mismatch (T/1 and 128 kbps)
Figure Shows QoS for Packets Flows Right-to-Left
|
|
|
CIR: 64 kbps |
|
|
|
|
R3 |
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
50 x 1500 |
|||||
|
|
|
Bc: 12,000 bits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Byte Packets |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
AR: |
|
|
|
FIFO Output Queue |
|
from Local |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
LAN Users |
|||||||||
|
128 kbps |
|
|
|
AR: T1 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
Up to 50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
...... |
|
|
|
|||
R2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
FRS2 |
|
FRS3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Queue Backs up on FRS2
This example results in a large queue forming at Frame Relay Switch 2 (FRS2) due to the speed mismatch between the access links at R2 and R3. In this example, 50 1500-byte packets arrive over R3’s Ethernet during a 500-ms span, needing to be delivered to R2. If all 50 packets were to arrive one after the other, with no gaps, a queue would form on R3’s S0 interface. Because it takes a little less than 10 ms to send a 1500-byte packet over T/1, however, all 50 packets would drain from the queue within that 500 ms.

94 Chapter 2: QoS Tools and Architectures
However, because the access link between FRS2 and R2 clocks at 128 kbps, it takes almost 100 ms to serialize a 1500-byte packet. So, although some queuing happens at R3, FRS2’s egress queue on the link to R2 fills—in this case, it needs to be 45 packets long. (Five packets could be sent over this link during the 500 ms that the rest of the packets are arriving.)
What happens if FRS2’s maximum egress queue size is only 20 frames? In such a scenario, around half of the frames are discarded. What is the impact? The quality of voice and video streams degrades. Most data applications resend their data—which may well cause the same phenomena all over again. Both results, of course, are bad.
Traffic shaping solves this particular problem. If R3 had just waited and sent one 1500-byte packet every 100 ms, because FRS2 can send one 1500-byte packet in a little less than 100 ms, no queue would have formed on FRS2’s egress interface. Even if R3 were to send one 1500-byte packet every 50 ms, FRS2’s egress queue would grow, but only a few packets would be lost.
Whenever a speed mismatch occurs, shaping may be able to reduce the chance that packets get dropped. In the previous example, a speed mismatch occurred on the access rates of two Frame Relay-connected routers. In other cases, it may be that many VCs terminate at one router, and the collective VC committed information rate (CIRs) far exceed the access rate (oversubscription). In either case, queues may form, and they may form in a place where the engineer cannot control the queue—inside the Frame Relay cloud.
Shaping may help in one other specific case: when the Frame Relay service provider uses policing. The service provider may need to limit a VC to use just the CIR amount of bandwidth. Most providers, as well as their customers, expect the Frame Relay data terminal equipment (DTE) to send more than the CIR across each VC. However, the provider may decide that in this case, they need to prevent R3 and R2 from sending more than CIR. Why? For many reasons, but one common reason may be that a particular part of their network may have enough capacity to support the CIRs of all VCs for all customers, but not much bandwidth beyond that. To protect customers from each other, the provider may limit each VC to CIR, or some percentage over CIR, and discard the excess traffic.
The QoS tool used to monitor the rate, and discard the excess traffic, is called traffic policing, or just policing. Because the provider is monitoring traffic sent by the customer, traffic policers typically monitor ingress traffic, although they can monitor egress traffic as well. Figure 2-5 shows the same network, but with policing and shaping enabled for traffic entering FRS3 from R3.

Introduction to IOS QoS Tools 95
Figure 2-5 Traffic Policing and Shaping
|
|
Step 4: |
|
Step 3: |
|
|
|
Step 2: |
|
|
Step 1: |
||||||||
1 1500 Byte Packet |
FR Switch Polices |
|
|
R3 Shapes: |
|
50 Packets |
|||||||||||||
|
Takes Less Than |
Allowing 1 1500 Byte |
|
|
1 1500 Byte |
|
Arrive at About |
||||||||||||
100 ms at 128 kbps; |
Packet per 200 ms |
|
Packet per 100 ms |
|
the Same Time |
||||||||||||||
|
Queue Does Not |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Form on FRS2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
1 |
3 |
|
|
|
200 ms |
100 ms |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
AR: |
1 |
3 |
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
1 2 3 4 .... 50 |
|||||||
|
|
128 kbps |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
R2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R3 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
FRS2 |
|
|
FRS3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Queue Does Not |
|
. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
Back up |
|
. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
on FRS2
Discarded
In the shaping discussion, one solution involved sending only one 1500-byte packet every 100 ms, which prevented an egress queue from forming on FRS2. As seen in this figure, however, the ingress policer on FRS3 monitors incoming traffic on the VC from R3 to R2, allowing only one 1500-byte packet per 200 ms. Policers discard the excess traffic, which in this case, even with shaping enabled on R3, half of the packets will be discarded when the network is busy!
The solution, when the provider enables policing, is to configure shaping such that R3 only sends traffic at a rate that the policer function allows. In summary, some of the reasons behind shaping and policing are as follows:
•Packets might be lost in a multiaccess WAN due to access rate speed mismatch, oversubscription of CIRs over an access link, or by policing performed by the provider.
•Traffic shaping queues packets when configured traffic rates are exceeded, delaying those packets, to avoid likely packet loss.
•Traffic policing discards packets when configured traffic rates are exceeded, protecting other flows from being overrun by a particular customer.
Shaping and Policing Tools
QoS shaping and policing tools provide you with a variety of methods. As usual, you may consider many factors when comparing these tools. (Table 2-4 lists a few of these factors.) First, not all shaping and policing tools support every data-link protocol. Second, some tools can be enabled on a subinterface, but not on a per data-link connection identifier (DLCI); therefore, in cases where a network uses multipoint subinterfaces, one tool may give more granularity for