Enterprise QOS Migration and Use Cases BRKRST-2508 Ina Singh and Ken Briley Technical Leader, Engineering and Technical Marketing Engineer
QoS is implicit in current Networks Application Per-Hop Admission Queuing & Application Class Behavior Control Dropping Examples VoIP Telephony EF Required Priority Queue (PQ) Cisco IP Phones (G.711, G.729) Broadcast Video CS5 Required (Optional) PQ Cisco IP Video Surveillance / Cisco Enterprise TV Realtime Interactive CS4 Required (Optional) PQ Cisco TelePresence Multimedia Conferencing AF4 Required BW Queue + DSCP WRED Cisco Unified Personal Communicator, WebEx Multimedia Streaming AF3 Recommended BW Queue + DSCP WRED Cisco Digital Media System (VoDs) Network Control CS6 BW Queue EIGRP, OSPF, BGP, HSRP, IKE Call-Signaling CS3 BW Queue SCCP, SIP, H.323 Ops / Admin / Mgmt (OAM) CS2 BW Queue SNMP, SSH, Syslog Transactional Data AF2 BW Queue + DSCP WRED ERP Apps, CRM Apps, Database Apps Bulk Data AF1 BW Queue + DSCP WRED E-mail, FTP, Backup Apps, Content Distribution Best Effort DF Default Queue + RED Default Class Scavenger CS1 Min BW Queue (Deferential) YouTube, itunes, BitTorent, Xbox Live 2
Agenda Deployment Challenges QoS Convergence QoS Foundations Practical Use Cases Feature Enhancements 3
Enterprise QoS Challenges
Deployment Challenges High Level Challenges: Design- Campus QoS Design (BRKRST-2500) WAN and Branch QoS Design (BRKRST-2501) Deployment- Enterprise QoS Case Study(TECRST-1501 ) Low Level Challenges: Platform CLI Differences Behavioral Changes/Differences Feature Deprecation and Integration Modular QOS CLI (MQC) Hierarchical Queueing Framework(HQF) 5
QoS Convergence
QoS Convergence From the era of provisioning QOS differently in each box and interfaces, in the near future all router and switch platforms are converging towards common provisioning, common infrastructure and common scheduling 7
QoS Convergence Platforms are focused on: Migrating to MQC (Modular QoS CLI) Migrating to HQF (Hierarchical Queueing Framework) Aligning CLI to provide consistency Focusing on baseline QoS behaviors 8
QoS Foundations
QoS Foundations Provisioning MQC (Modular QoS CLI) Queuing Infrastructure HQF (Hierarchical Queueing Framework) Scheduling 10
MQC (Modular QoS CLI) Structured Class-map C1 Policy-map P1 Service-policy S1 Standardized Giga 0/1 Service-policy S1 Serial 0/1 Service-policy S1 Reusable Policy-map P1 Class C1 Policy-map P2 Class C1 Across Platform 3945ce9# Service-policyS1 ASRpe2# Service-policy S1 11
MQC vs. Interface CLI Standardized and Reusable Interface Based Configuration interface GigabitEthernet0/1 random-detect dscp-based random-detect exponential- weighting-constant 1 random-detect dscp 8 200 300 10 MQC policy-map random-detect class class-default random-detect dscp-based random-detect exponential-weighting-constant 1 random-detect dscp 8 200 300 10 interface GigabitEthernet0/1 service-policy output random-detect interface GigabitEthernet0/2 service-policy output random-detect 12
HQF (Hierarchical Queueing Framework) Eth0/1 Shape 10 mbps Eth0/1.1 BW 30% Class-Default 70% Classsdefault FQ PQ 30% Tunnel1 Shape 1 mbps Tunnel2 Shape 1 mbps PQ 20% Classdefault FQ 13
Pre and Post HQF Concepts Pre-HQF Scheduling occurs only at child Priority traffic looses status at parent level Fair-queue only applicable in Class-Default HQF Scheduling occurs at each level Priority traffic continues to be scheduled ahead of standard classes Fair-queueing can apply to all classes 14
HQF from100 feet PQ *Priority Traffic is only guaranteed until the next scheduling* Pre-HQF PQ HQF Priority Traffic is guaranteed 15
HQF (Hierarchical Queueing Framework) Platfom Support: S Train(7600): 12.2(27)SBA MCP( ASR1K): XE2 and above T Train(ISR): 12.4(20)T, 15.1(T) 16
HQF (Hierarchical Queueing Framework) What HQF provides Multiple levels of packet scheduling Integrated class-based shaping and queuing Fair queuing and drop policies for any class on a per-class basis Priority propagation or True Priority for priority traffic at any level Guaranteed bandwidth allocation during provisioning and admission control for conflicting configs Consistent queuing behavior across all main Cisco IOS releases Common functionality for both distributed and non-distributed implementations http://www.cisco.com/en/us/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6558/white_paper_c11-481499.html 17
Scheduling: 2 vs 3-Parameter 2-Parameter Scheduler(MIN, MAX) Software Platforms (7200, ISRG1/ G2, SIP-200) MIN Priority, Bandwidth (kbps, %), Bandwidth Remaining % MAX Shape/Interface SpeedMIN is calculated if not explicitly configured Excess bandwidth allocated to Class- Default 3-Parameter Scheduler (MIN, MAX, Excess) ASR1000 MIN Bandwidth (kbps, %) MAX Shape/Interface Speed Excess Bandwidth Remaining Ratio, Bandwidth Remaining % MIN = 0 if not explicitly configured Default Excess Ratio 1:1 Ratio of Minimum bandwidth distribution is 1:1 unless explicitly configured Without 100% Bandwidth allocated excess goes to Class-Default NO Minimum guarantee unless explicitly configured Without 100% Bw allocated Excess is distributed 1:1 to non-priority classes 18
Scheduling: Example 2 Parameter policy-map p2 class c1 bandwidth 5000 class default Note: Total Int BW is 10 Mbps Standardized 3 Paramenter and Reusable Interface policy-map Based p2 Configuration interface class c1 GigabitEthernet0/1 bandwidth random-detect 5000 dscp-based random-detect exponentialclass default weighting-constant 1 Note: random-detect Total Int BW is 10 dscp Mbps 8 200 300 10 MQC Result: Class C1 5Mbps Class Default 5Mbps Result: Class C1 5Mbps + 2.5Mbps Class Default 2.5Mbps 19
Scheduling: Recomendation Recommendation for Consistency Use Bandwidth Remaining % Allocate 100% of bandwidth Configure a class-default Configure priority with separate policer Reasoning Bandwidth remaining % allocates excess on 3 Parameter and Min on 2 Parameter which end up providing the same bandwidth allocation Excess bandwidth calculations to not take place if 100% is allocated Policers use the MAX rate to calculate percentages regardless of scheduler type Policy-map Foo Class EF Priority Police rate percent x Class AF4x Bandwidth Remaining percent 10 Class AF3x Bandwidth Remaining percent 20 Class AF2x Bandwidth Remaining percent 30 Class Class-Default Bandwidth Remaining percent 40 20
Practical Use Cases
Use Case Overview Deprecated CLIs Frame Relay Traffic Shaping Shape max-buffers Interface based WRED, PQ and FQ Global priority-list & queue New Features Fair-Queueing for user-defined class Queue-limit modification Priority Level/Strict Priority Per-Tunnel QoS Behavioral differences 1% requirement for class-default BP % min value 8kbps, 1kbps Deprecated Features: http://www.cisco.com/en/us/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps6537/ps6558/product_bulletin_c25-580832.html 22
Use Case 1: Migrating to a New Platform Case Study 1: Need to integrate ISR2 Therefore need to use 15.1xT Old Release: 12.4(15)T Target Release: 15.1(3)T Challenge: Configuration rejected CLI missing Policy-map Foo Class EF priority percent 30 Class AF4 Bandwidth percent 40 Class AF3 Bandwidth percent 30 Interface eth0/0 service-policy output Foo Interface eth0/0 service-policy output Foo interface Serial0/0 encapsulation frame-relay frame-relay traffic-shaping random-detect dscp-based frame-relay fragmentation frame-relay payload-compression 23
Use Case 1: Control Traffic and 1% Default Case Study 1: Challenge: Configuration rejected Policy-map Foo Class EF priority percent 30 Class AF4 Bandwidth percent 40 Class AF3 Bandwidth percent 30 Interface eth0/0 service-policy output Foo Interface eth0/0 service-policy output Foo interface Serial0/0 encapsulation frame-relay frame-relay traffic-shaping random-detect dscp-based frame-relay fragmentation frame-relay payload-compression 24
Control Traffic and 1% Default HQF requires minimim 1% allocation for Class-Default Provides non-pak Priority packets with allocated bandwidth ensuring control packets are not dropped Keepalives (L2/L3) cannot be classified and therefore link flaps on the ISR have been seen Policy-map Foo Class EF priority percent 30 Class AF4 Bandwidth percent 30 Class AF3 Bandwidth percent 10 Class class-default Bandwidth percent 30 Interface eth0/0 service-policy output Foo Recommendation It is best practice to configure a class-default and allocate a sizeable (25% -30%) bandwidth as this class is for traffic that is either un-classifiable or just not classified 25
Use Case 1: 8k per class limitation Reuse of policies: If the customer were to reuse the previous policy on a serial link the percentages would be too low to guarantee Customer will not be allowed to reuse the current policy as the AF3 class is asking to be guaranteed 3k of bandwidth Limit modified to 1k in latest release Policy-map Foo Class EF priority percent 30 Class AF4 Bandwidth percent 30 Class AF3 Bandwidth percent 5 Class AF2 Bandwidth percent 10 Class class-default Bandwidth percent 25 Interface eth0/0 service-policy output Foo Informational Message: Configured Percent results in out of range kbps.allowed range is 8-2000000. The present CIR value is 7. 26
8k per class limitation Reuse of policies: Less than 8k bandwidth per class is not meaningful Merge multiple small classes to make a reasonable bigger class for bandwidth sharing Policy-map Foo Class EF priority percent 30 Class AF4 Bandwidth percent 30 Class AF3&AF2 Bandwidth percent 15 Class class-default Bandwidth percent 25 Note: Allocate minimum 8k bandwidth per class Interface eth0/0 service-policy output Foo 27
Use Case 1: CLI missing: Frame-relay Case Study 1: Challenge: CLI missing Policy-map Foo Class EF priority percent 30 Class AF4 Bandwidth percent 40 Class AF3 Bandwidth percent 5 Class class-default Bandwidth percent 25 Interface eth0/0 service-policy output Foo Interface eth0/0 service-policy output Foo interface Serial0/0 encapsulation frame-relay frame-relay traffic-shaping random-detect dscp-based frame-relay fragmentation frame-relay payload-compression 28
Frame Relay Traffic Shaping Choppy Voice quality despite of QOS ISR1 Latency for voice irrespective of interleave ISR2 ISR3 29
FRTS FRF.12 does not fragment priority traffic FRF.9 no longer compresses priority traffic Priority traffic is passed with less latency and jitter than Pre-HQF MQC based policy provides symmetry between Frame/Ethernet VoIP Call-Signalling Critical Data Bulk Data Classifier Best Effort LLQ/CBWFQ FRTS Dual- FIFO Tx-Ring 30
FRTS Recomendation Pre-MQC: queue-list 1 queue 4 byte-count 100 map-class frame-relay cisco_class frame-relay cir 64000 frame-relay fecn-adapt frame-relay custom-queue-list listnumber 1 MQC: policy-map cisco_policy_child class child bandwidth kbps bp brp policy-map cisco_policy_parent class class-default shape average 64 kbps shape fecn-adapt service-policy cisco_policy_child interface Serial0/0.1 point-to-point ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 frame-relay interface-dlci 16 frame-relay class cisco_class interface Serial0/0 encapsulation frame-relay frame-relay traffic-shaping frame-relay fragmentation frame-relay payload-compression map-class frame-relay cisco_class service-policy output cisco_policy_parent interface Serial0/0.1 point-to-point ip address 10.1.1.1 255.255.255.0 frame-relay interface-dlci 16 frame-relay class cisco_class interface Serial0/0 encapsulation frame-relay frame-relay fragmentation frame-relay payload-compression 31
Use Case 1: CLI missing: WRED Case Study 1: Challenge: CLI missing Policy-map Foo Class EF priority percent 30 Class AF4 Bandwidth percent 40 Class AF3 Bandwidth percent 5 Class class-default Bandwidth percent 25 Interface eth0/0 service-policy output Foo Interface eth0/0 service-policy output Foo interface Serial0/0 encapsulation frame-relay frame-relay traffic-shaping random-detect dscp-based frame-relay fragmentation frame-relay payload-compression 32
WRED Why Can t I have WRED with my class-default? Can I run wred with my ATM traffic? I just upgraded from FE to Gig. I wish my WRED was smart 33
WRED Recomendation Pre MQC: random-detect-group tcp_wred dscp 9 20 50 interface ATM1/0.1 point-to-point pvc 15/33 random-detect attach tcp_wred interface serial 1/0 random-detect dscp-based Post HQF: Policy-map wred_policy class cos2 Bandwidth percent 20 random-detect cos-based class atm bandwidth percent 30 random-detect atm-clp-based class class-default random-detect interface ATM1/0.1 point-to-point pvc 15/33 service-policy output wred_policy interface serial 1/0 service-policy output wred_policy 34
Use Case 2: WAN Interface Upgrade Case Study: Wan Interface upgraded from Serial to Gig. Don t want to retune WRED Don t want to retune queue-limit for Best effort class Integrating voice and video applications Old Release: 12.4(15)T Target Release: 15.1(3)T Challenges: Need Simpler buffer management Need to have multiple level of priority 35
Buffer Management Case Study 2: Challenges: Need Simpler buffer management 36
Buffer Management Buffering occurs at every level shown in the diagram The Class-based queues are attached via a logical MQC based policy to the target The Physical interface can be segmented into subinterfaces, ATM VCs, PVCs where buffer configurations reside PQ AF4 AF3 BE PQ Class Queues Subinterface Queue Physical Interface Queue TX - Queue The Tx-Queue is the final Fifo buffer AF4 AF3 Subinterface Queue BE Note:Configuring queue-limit in ms helps upgrade to high-speed int easier 37
Buffer Management policy-map queue-limit class voice bandwidth 20 queue-limit 5 ms Interface GigabitEthernet0/1 service-policy output queue-limit hold-queue 10000 out PQ AF4 AF3 BE PQ AF4 AF3 BE Class Queues Subinterface Queue Subinterface Queue Physical Interface Queue TX - Queue Interface ATM3/0.1 point-topoint pvc 15/3 vc-hold-queue 1000 service-policy out queuelimit PQ AF4 AF3 BE PQ AF4 AF3 Class Queues VC Hold-queue VC Hold-queue Physical Interface Queue TX - Queue BE 38
Pre -HQF Buffer Management policy-map parent_policy class class-default shape average 8000 shape max-buffers 40 service-policy child_policy policy-map child_policy class voice priority percent 10 3000 Class video bandwidth remaining percent 25 queue-limit 10 ms class tcp bandwidth remaining percent 10 random-detect HQF policy-map parent_policy class class-default shape average 8000 queue-limit 40 ms service-policy child_policy policy-map child_policy class voice priority percent 10 3000 queue-limit 5 ms Class video bandwidth remaining percent 25 queue-limit 10 ms class tcp bandwidth remaining percent 10 queue-limit 15 ms random-detect 39
Use Case 2:Priority Traffic Level Case Study 2: Challenges: Need to have multiple level of priority 40
Priority Traffic Level Pre-HQF: Supports up to 4 levels of priority queues Scheduler always services the highestpriority queue first until exhausted Classify High Medium Normal Low HQF Feature: Priority class traffic can be assigned up to 2 levels Priority traffic can only take up to 99% of interface bandwidth in ISR Classify PQ1 PQ2 Q2 Q3 Q4 41
Priority Traffic Level Recomendation Pre-MQC: priority-list 1 protocol ip high map-class frame-relay pri_vc frame-relay priority-group 1 interface serial 0 encapsulation frame-relay frame-relay interface-dlci 100 class pri_vc MQC: Policy-map policy-map-name class voice priority level 1 percent 10 class video priority level 2 percent 20 map-class frame-relay pri_vc service-policy output policy-mapname interface serial 0 encapsulation frame-relay frame-relay interface-dlci 100 class pri_vc 42
Use Case 3: Platform Mix Case Study: Need to use a mix of ISRG2 and ASR1K for CE Using Bandwidth percent 2 in grandchild policy Old Release: 15.1(1)T Target Release: 15.1(3)T Challenges: Identical config gives different result Bandwidth % config gets rejected for not meeting min 8k One of the small classes does not get correct bandwidth 43
Use Case 3: Percentage Calculations ISR Percentages based on Min allocation to class Police rate percent is the only exception as police is considered to be a MAX feature ASR Percentages based on Max allocation or parent shape rate Both Any Bandwidth % or Bandwidth remaining % less than 8 kbps will be rejected Very asymmetrical bandwidth distribution may result in unexpected system behavior e.g. Class 1 bandwidth 74984 kbps (88.21%) Class 2 bandwidth 16 kbps (0.01% ) 44
Percentage Calculations Recommendation Use Police rate percent whenever possible with priority queue, this will enable both the 2-parameter and 3- parameter scheduler to function in the same way Use Bandwidth remaining percent for comparable behavior despite of 2- parameter sceduler in ISR vs. 3- paramenter sceduler in ASR Do not use bandwidth % or bandwidth remaining % that translates to less than 8 kbps. Aggregate very low bandwidth classes together policy-map cbwfq class out-voice priority police rate percent 33 class ipv6_flow_1 bandwidth remaining percent 20 class ipv6_flow_2 bandwidth remaining percent 10 class out-time-sensitive bandwidth remaining percent 20 class class-default bandwidth remaining percent 50 queue-limit 128 packets 45
Enhancements 46
Wouldn t it be nice Looking Ahead QOS is still very static in Dynamic Multipoint VPN.. I have CAC.. Why can t my voice traffic have absolute priority My FTP Class does not Have any control over hosts Would like to prioritize voice over data in my ATM VC 47
Fair Queue Overview: Ensures fair treatment to all types of traffic using five-tuple information. Eliminates need for very granular classification of traffic to provide equal bandwidth Typically used for non-priority class traffic that requires equal provision Offering: Per-Flow Queue Limit in Fair Queue Fair Queue in user class Fair Queue and WRED can coexist Fair Queue is supported only in the lowest hierarchical class User Defined Class Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue Queue TX-Ring 48
Fair Queue Pre HQF Fair-queue and wred Could t co-exist Fair-queue wasn t supported in user class Post HQF policy-map tcp_policy class tcp_class random-detect fair-queue Interface serial 1/0 fair-queue Interface mfr1 fair-queue Interface serial 1/0 service-policy output tcp_policy Interface mfr1 service-policy output tcp_policy 49
Strict Priority Overview: RTP traffic encapsulating VoIP packets is prioritized via ip rtp priority or frame-relay ip rtp priority by Matching on UDP port numbers In the event of congestion, priority traffic can be contained with implicit or explicit policer Uses Token Bucket implementation that permits burstines, but bounds it Classify Q2 Q3 Q4 PQ1 PQ2 Offerings: Strict priority, priority with implicit and explicit policer are avilable under trafficclass 50
Strict Priority: config example Pre-HQF: map-class frame-relay voip frame-relay ip rtp priority 16384 16380 210 interface Serial5/0 ip address 10.10.10.10 255.0.0.0 encapsulation frame-relay frame-relay interface-dlci 100 class voip HQF: policy-map priority-policy class voice priority map-class frame-relay voip service-policy output prioritypolicy interface Serial5/0 ip address 10.10.10.10 255.0.0.0 encapsulation frame-relay frame-relay interface-dlci 100 class voip 51
Queuing on ATM VC Overview: ATM is desirable for mixed traffic over a SP WAN with SLA Built-in ability to a certain level of QoS Offerings: Traffic Shape at the UNI router ATM PVC prevents congestion in WAN Helps prevent traffic from any VC consuming the entire interface bandwidth WRED atm-clp-based helps prevent global synchronization of TCP 52
Queuing on ATM VC:Config Example Pre HQF: Queueing Policy on ATM PVC was Not Supported HQF: policy-map child_policy class ef priority 1000 class prec3 bandwidth percent 40 policy-map parent_policy class c1ass-default shape average 1000000 service-policy child_policy interface atm1/0.1 pvc 1/100 vbr-nrt 2000 2000 service-policy output parrent_policy 53
Per Tunnel QoS Overview: Uses NHRP group to dynamically apply, modify and remove QOS policy per spoke. QOS Queuing policy can be applied on a hub in the egress direction Offerings: HQF performs the queuing at the egress physical interface instead of in the switching path to improve performance GRE,IPsec &L2 header are included in calculations for shaping and bandwidth. Traffic can be regulated from the hub to spokes on a per-spoke basis Spoke n Hub VPN Spoke 1 Spoke 2 DMVPN Tunnels Traditional Static Tunnels Static Known IP Addresses Dynamic Unknown IP Addresses 54
Per Tunnel QoS: concepts Define Groups of Spokes Define Policy need per group Configure Policy ahead of time Add Spokes dynamically Continue to expand network 55
Per-Tunnel QoS: config example Pre HQF This Feature was not Supported Post HQF On Spoke: interface tunnel 1 ip nhrp group spoke_group1 On Hub: interface tunnel 1 ip nhrp map group spoke_group1 service- policy output group1_parent show policy-map multipoint 56
Complete Your Online Session Evaluation Receive 25 Cisco Preferred Access points for each session evaluation you complete. Give us your feedback and you could win fabulous prizes. Points are calculated on a daily basis. Winners will be notified by email after July 22nd. Complete your session evaluation online now (open a browser through our wireless network to access our portal) or visit one of the Internet stations throughout the Convention Center. Don t forget to activate your Cisco Live and Networkers Virtual account for access to all session materials, communities, and on-demand and live activities throughout the year. Activate your account at any internet station or visit www.ciscolivevirtual.com. 57
Visit the Cisco Store for Related Titles http://theciscostores.com 58
59
Thank you. 60