Il giorno mer, 22/08/2012 alle 14.23 +0000, Brian Turnbow ha scritto: > Hello Everyone, > > I am trying to realize a qos configuration on an asr 1006 for pppoe services > being sold by our national incumbent. > On a single GE interface I will receive two classes of services, cos 0 and > cos 1, each with a set bandwidth. i.e. cos 0 100mbps cos 1 20mbps. > Each dslam gets terminated using a vlan for each cos , so in the end I will > have n vlans for the cos 0 traffic and x vlans for the cos 1 traffic. > Things gets complicated though as we want to assign a policy to the pppoe > sessions as well, as we will have varying line rates on the customer lines. > Ideally I would like to be able to shape the n vlans to the cos 0 rate and > the x vlans to the cos 1 rate, > and then be able to shape the single sessions as each will have a different > line rate. > > I have tried > > 1) with the SE following us (on vacation now since we need him) we thought > that service policy aggregation would be the way to go. > http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/ios/qos/configuration/guide/qos_policies_agg.html > but when we assign the end user policy via radius it does not get applied and > we have the error > policy TEST with fragment class can only be attached to ethernet subifc and > port-channel subifc > Tinkered awhile with various configs but no go lets try something else.. > > 2) setting up a policy on the GE that shapes on match vlans , and sending > service policy for the users via radius. > error message > service-policy with queueing features on sessions is not allowed in > conjunction with interface based > and the policy is not applied > bummer.... > I am thinking about trying to declare the interface bandwidth via radius and > then use bandwidth % instead of shape but that should be queueing as well and > also the scaling documents for the asr have big warnings on the use of > lcp:interface-config ... > > > So here I am looking for a way to do this.... > > The only other thing that comes to mind is placing a box before the asr to > shape the vlans and just work on the sessions on the asr, but that means > another box to purchase, maintain, etc etc. > > If you've made it this far (sorry about the length) > Has anyone done something similar, or have any suggestions ? > > Thanks in advance! > > Brian
Hello Brian, We faced the same problem ( and, i bet, the same incumbent too ) earlier in the summer. We got out of it by placing an old Catalyst switch between the incumbent and our BRAS. Regards Marco _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
