GroupStudy.com GroupStudy.com - A virtual community of network engineers
 Home  BookStore  StudyNotes  Links  Archives  StudyRooms  HelpWanted  Discounts  Login
RE: QoS policer, buckets, tokens posted 03/10/2006
[Chronological Index] [Thread Index] [Top] [Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]


This is excellent, Chris.   Thanks for sharing this.


Dave Schulz, 
Email: dschulz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx



-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Chris Lewis
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 12:45 PM
To: Popgeorgiev Nikolay
Cc: ccielab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: QoS policer, buckets, tokens

This is fairly easy to test, consider R1 connected to R2 over an HDLC
link.

I configure inbound policing on R2 like this and R1 for a clocked rate
of
512000

 policy-map test
  class class-default
   police cir 128000 bc 1000
     conform-action transmit
     exceed-action drop
!
interface Serial0/1
 ip address 10.1.1.2 255.255.255.0
 service-policy input test

To start testing, R2 shows the following

R2(config-if)#do sho policy-map int
 Serial0/1

  Service-policy input: test

    Class-map: class-default (match-any)
      0 packets, 0 bytes
      5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
      Match: any
      police:
          cir 128000 bps, bc 1000 bytes
        conformed 0 packets, 0 bytes; actions:
          transmit
        exceeded 0 packets, 0 bytes; actions:
          drop
        conformed 0 bps, exceed 0 bps

I now ping from R1 with varying packet sizes

R1#ping
Protocol [ip]:
Target IP address: 10.1.1.2
Repeat count [5]: 50
Datagram size [100]: 450
Timeout in seconds [2]: 1
Extended commands [n]:
Sweep range of sizes [n]:
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 50, 450-byte ICMP Echos to 10.1.1.2, timeout is 1 seconds:
!!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!
Success rate is 76 percent (38/50), round-trip min/avg/max = 16/16/16 ms
R1#ping
Protocol [ip]:
Target IP address: 10.1.1.2
Repeat count [5]: 50
Datagram size [100]: 950
Timeout in seconds [2]: 1
Extended commands [n]:
Sweep range of sizes [n]:
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 50, 950-byte ICMP Echos to 10.1.1.2, timeout is 1 seconds:
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
Success rate is 50 percent (11/22), round-trip min/avg/max = 32/32/32 ms

Now if I try with packet size 1001, nothing gets through

R1#ping
Protocol [ip]:
Target IP address: 10.1.1.2
Repeat count [5]:
Datagram size [100]: 1001
Timeout in seconds [2]: 1
Extended commands [n]:
Sweep range of sizes [n]:
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 5, 1001-byte ICMP Echos to 10.1.1.2, timeout is 1 seconds:
.....

If I change the policy-map on R2 to the following

 policy-map test
  class class-default
   police cir 128000 bc 2000
     conform-action transmit
     exceed-action drop

I get these results

R1#ping
Protocol [ip]:
Target IP address: 10.1.1.2
Repeat count [5]: 50
Datagram size [100]: 950
Timeout in seconds [2]: 1
Extended commands [n]:
Sweep range of sizes [n]:
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 50, 950-byte ICMP Echos to 10.1.1.2, timeout is 1 seconds:
!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!!.!!
Success rate is 76 percent (38/50), round-trip min/avg/max = 32/32/32 ms

This is exactly the same success rate as with Bc equal to 1000 on R2, so
you
can see Bc does not affect sustained throughput.

Now however if I try one more test

R1#ping
Protocol [ip]:
Target IP address: 10.1.1.2
Repeat count [5]: 50
Datagram size [100]: 2001
Timeout in seconds [2]: 1
Extended commands [n]:
Sweep range of sizes [n]:
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 50, 2001-byte ICMP Echos to 10.1.1.2, timeout is 1 seconds:
!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.
Success rate is 50 percent (25/50), round-trip min/avg/max = 64/64/64 ms

Packest above the Bc size are getting allowed, this is because the
interfce
MTU on so/1 is set to 1500 and they are fragmented.

If I change the clock rate to 64000 on R1, I get

R1#ping
Protocol [ip]:
Target IP address: 10.1.1.2
Repeat count [5]: 50
Datagram size [100]: 950
Timeout in seconds [2]: 1
Extended commands [n]:
Sweep range of sizes [n]:
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 50, 950-byte ICMP Echos to 10.1.1.2, timeout is 1 seconds:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (50/50), round-trip min/avg/max =
240/241/244 ms
R1#ping
Protocol [ip]:
Target IP address: 10.1.1.2
Repeat count [5]: 50
Datagram size [100]: 2001
Timeout in seconds [2]:
Extended commands [n]:
Sweep range of sizes [n]:
Type escape sequence to abort.
Sending 50, 2001-byte ICMP Echos to 10.1.1.2, timeout is 2 seconds:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Success rate is 100 percent (50/50), round-trip min/avg/max =
512/512/516 ms

So you have to look at the overall way the packet is delivered to see
what
will get through and what will not.

Chris






On 3/9/06, Popgeorgiev Nikolay <nikolay.popgeorgiev@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>  Ok thanks both of you I will real the previous post also
> but Chris,
>
> if a packet with size of 1500 bytes comes it can never never be
served, no
> matter how much time has elapse after the previous packet used the
tokens,
> cause the max bucket size can be 1000bytes right ?
>
> And what matters how big I will make the bucket (Bc) when the average
will
> be the same in the infinity ?
>
> what is the difference in real situation between these two command:
>
> police 128000 bc 1000
> police 128000 bc 2000
>
> thanks !
> Nick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Chris Lewis [mailto:chrlewiscsco@xxxxxxxxx]
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 09, 2006 5:00 PM
> *To:* Popgeorgiev Nikolay
> *Cc:* ccielab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* Re: QoS policer, buckets, tokens
>
>
>  The previous post
> http://www.groupstudy.com/archives/ccielab/200509/msg00978.html may
help.
> Policing calculations are done as a packet arrives, the Bc defines the
depth
> of teh token bucket, meaning if there are free toekns after the
policing
> calculation done as a packet arrives, they will be put there for later
use
> if needed. The CIR sets the rate that will be achieved on a continual
basis.
>
>
> In your case, the size of the packet is not inherently the issue. A
packet
> will be forwarded if [t-t1]*CIR, where t is time of packet arrival and
t1
is
> time of last packet arrival is greater than the number of bits to be
> transmitted, so it is more a case of the time between packets being
offered
> for transmission as well as their size, rather than anything to do
with
> their size as an isolated consideration.
>
> Chris
>
>
>  On 3/9/06, Popgeorgiev Nikolay <nikolay.popgeorgiev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
>
> After long and useless reading of all kinds of books, white papers,
docCDs
> and other I can say that policing is still a mistery for me.
> Please help.
>
> I think I understand very clearly shaping and the idea of Bc, Be and
> tokens around it. But in policing it is a little different.
>
> Let me tell you how I understand the things and tell me where my
mistake
> is.
>
> When I configure this command under policy-map
>
> Police 128000 bc 1000 conform-acion transmit exceed-action drop,
>
> As I understand the fundamentals a packet will be forwarded if:
>        - the packet is smaller than the Bc bucket or smaller than 1000
> bytes in this case (otherwise fragmentation will be a good idea)
>        - enough time has elapsed after the previous packet was
forwarded
> and the token bucket is filled enough to serve our packet
>
> Other things I think are right
>        - if I have Bc=1000 this is my tocken bucket size and no matter
how
> big the policed rate (in my case 128000) is, the tocken bucked cannot
have
> more than 1000 tockens in it refilled?
> Tha major thing I don't understand is If the above is right, what
meaning
> does this policed rate has. What will be the difference if I put
256000
> instead of 128000 ? Maybe the bucket will be refilled in smaller time
with
> more tokens ?
>
>
> And if I load the router with constant traffic let's say around 512
Kbit/s
> what output rate will be expected on the interface ?
>
>
>
> You can see in what mess I am.
> At least someone tell me if I am on the right path, and some more
> clarification about Policing will be very helpful.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscription information may be found at: 
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html