Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > Please help ! (IOS is driving me nuts !)

Reply
Thread Tools

Please help ! (IOS is driving me nuts !)

 
 
JustMe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2004
Hi

sorry to re-sent this question again, but IOS is really driving me crazy
! And I can't imagine nobody on earth

I can't succeed setting up Priority Queueing on a PPPoA interface for a
Cisco 3640 IOS 12.3T

The same config works on a standard ethernet interface, but nothing
happens on the Virtual-Access interface that stays "fifo". Furthermore
the access-list counters does not increase (whereas they do if the
priority-group is applied to a std ethernet interface).

Any hint, sample config ?

Thx

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ivan Ostres
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2004
In article <40ab0744$0$10206$(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)i
says...
> Hi
>
> sorry to re-sent this question again, but IOS is really driving me crazy
> ! And I can't imagine nobody on earth
>
> I can't succeed setting up Priority Queueing on a PPPoA interface for a
> Cisco 3640 IOS 12.3T
>
> The same config works on a standard ethernet interface, but nothing
> happens on the Virtual-Access interface that stays "fifo". Furthermore
> the access-list counters does not increase (whereas they do if the
> priority-group is applied to a std ethernet interface).
>
> Any hint, sample config ?
>


As first, I'm no expert in dial-up. What I can conclude from your OP, is
that you want to make some kind of priority queuing on per user basis
(virtual-access interface is built on per-user basis).

I would like to ask, what actualy do you wanna do? Is this priority for
voice or other traffic? Please, post the config you were trying with.

--Ivan.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
JustMe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2004


Ivan Ostres wrote:

> In article <40ab0744$0$10206$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)i
> says...
>
>>Hi
>>
>>sorry to re-sent this question again, but IOS is really driving me crazy
>>! And I can't imagine nobody on earth
>>
>>I can't succeed setting up Priority Queueing on a PPPoA interface for a
>>Cisco 3640 IOS 12.3T
>>
>>The same config works on a standard ethernet interface, but nothing
>>happens on the Virtual-Access interface that stays "fifo". Furthermore
>>the access-list counters does not increase (whereas they do if the
>>priority-group is applied to a std ethernet interface).
>>
>>Any hint, sample config ?
>>

>
>
> As first, I'm no expert in dial-up. What I can conclude from your OP, is
> that you want to make some kind of priority queuing on per user basis
> (virtual-access interface is built on per-user basis).


is an ADSL access thus, there's only one "user"

>
> I would like to ask, what actualy do you wanna do? Is this priority for
> voice or other traffic? Please, post the config you were trying with.


As ADSL is Asymetric, fullfilling the Upload causes DL to decrease as
ACKs go back slowly to the server. Thus my goal is to make this ACK
packet go faster outside the router. My config is as follows :

(cisco IOS 12.3T latest revision on a 3640)

First, I defined 4 access lists :

access-list 101 permit tcp any any ack

access-list 102 permit tcp any any eq www
access-list 102 permit tcp any any eq 443
access-list 102 permit tcp any any eq 22
access-list 102 permit tcp any any eq telnet

access-list 103 permit ip 172.16.0.0 0.0.255.255 any

access-list 104 permit ip any any

101 is for ACK packets (higher priority)
102 is for my "favorite" protocols
103 is all from my LAN
104 is averything else (including a "guest" network

Then I definet the PQ :

priority-list 1 protocol ip high list 101
priority-list 1 protocol ip medium list 102
priority-list 1 protocol ip normal list 103
priority-list 1 protocol ip low list 104
priority-list 1 queue-limit 40 80 120 160

I assigned it to the Dialer & even to the ATM & Virtual template
interfaces (!) with a "priority-group" command

BUT :
1/ access list counters stays to 0, while when assigning the same
Priority Group to a simple Ethernet Interface they do increase
2/ The show int dialer0 shows :

Dialer0 is up, line protocol is up (spoofing)
Hardware is Unknown
Internet address is 82.120.135.199/32
MTU 1524 bytes, BW 56 Kbit, DLY 20000 usec,
reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
Encapsulation PPP, loopback not set
Keepalive set (10 sec)
DTR is pulsed for 1 seconds on reset
Interface is bound to Vi3
Last input never, output never, output hang never
Last clearing of "show interface" counters 05:11:23
Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0
Queueing strategy: priority-list 1
Output queue (queue priority: size/max/drops):
high: 0/40/0, medium: 0/80/0, normal: 0/120/0, low: 0/160/0
5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec
19578 packets input, 5857320 bytes
18533 packets output, 1843342 bytes
Bound to:
Virtual-Access3 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is Virtual Access interface
MTU 1524 bytes, BW 56 Kbit, DLY 100000 usec,
reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255
Encapsulation PPP, LCP Open
Open: IPCP
PPPoATM vaccess, cloned from Dialer0
Vaccess status 0x44
Bound to ATM0/0 VCD: 1, VPI: 8, VCI: 35, loopback not set
Keepalive set (10 sec)
DTR is pulsed for 5 seconds on reset
Interface is bound to Di0 (Encapsulation PPP)
Last input 00:00:02, output never, output hang never
Last clearing of "show interface" counters 05:10:56
Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output drops: 0
Queueing strategy: fifo
Output queue: 0/40 (size/max)
5 minute input rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec
5 minute output rate 0 bits/sec, 0 packets/sec
19604 packets input, 5858029 bytes, 0 no buffer
Received 0 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles
0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored, 0 abort
18567 packets output, 1844249 bytes, 0 underruns
0 output errors, 0 collisions, 0 interface resets
0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out
0 carrier transitions

==> The vrtual interface (ie: Virtual-Access3) is still in
Queueing-Strategy "fifo"

As far as I remember this config was working on an older IOS (around 1
year ago). I'd prefer not to downgrade because of security issues

Thx in advance !

>
> --Ivan.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ivan Ostres
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2004
In article <40ab4aeb$0$10196$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)i
says...
>
> is an ADSL access thus, there's only one "user"
>
> (cisco IOS 12.3T latest revision on a 3640)
>


First, I would like to note that you are using T train (12.3). I don't
like to use it because lately, T train has introduces new features, but
introduces new bugs as well. It does not mean, "don't ever use T train",
just be carefull and be aware that this could be a problem.

Second, I don't know if it does makes sence, but in 12.2.16B1 (or around
that version) and 12.2.somethingT SSS feature was introduced which also
pushed feature of terminating connections on Virtual-Access subinterface
and not interface. You can try to disable this using 'no virtual-template
subinterfaces'. Again, I'm not sure it is the problem, but this is
something new introduced with virtual-access and you said that it worked
with older IOS, and I AFAIK, "PQ will not work on subinterfaces and
tunnel interfaces".

--Ivan.


 
Reply With Quote
 
JustMe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-19-2004


Ivan Ostres wrote:

> In article <40ab4aeb$0$10196$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)i
> says...
>
>>is an ADSL access thus, there's only one "user"
>>
>>(cisco IOS 12.3T latest revision on a 3640)
>>

>
>
> First, I would like to note that you are using T train (12.3). I don't
> like to use it because lately, T train has introduces new features, but
> introduces new bugs as well. It does not mean, "don't ever use T train",
> just be carefull and be aware that this could be a problem.


I checked with the latests 12.3T : same problem

>
> Second, I don't know if it does makes sence, but in 12.2.16B1 (or around
> that version) and 12.2.somethingT SSS feature was introduced which also
> pushed feature of terminating connections on Virtual-Access subinterface
> and not interface. You can try to disable this using 'no virtual-template


did not changed anything
(actually there's still a Virtual-access cloned from DIaler0 ???)

> subinterfaces'. Again, I'm not sure it is the problem, but this is
> something new introduced with virtual-access and you said that it worked
> with older IOS, and I AFAIK, "PQ will not work on subinterfaces and
> tunnel interfaces".


That's stupid, isn't it ?

>
> --Ivan.
>
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ivan Ostres
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2004
In article <40abe0ec$0$26899$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)i
says...
>
>
> Ivan Ostres wrote:
> >
> > First, I would like to note that you are using T train (12.3). I don't
> > like to use it because lately, T train has introduces new features, but
> > introduces new bugs as well. It does not mean, "don't ever use T train",
> > just be carefull and be aware that this could be a problem.

>
> I checked with the latests 12.3T : same problem
>


This doesn't prove anything, I'm afraid. But I don't think it's a bug, I
just note that as an option.


> >
> > Second, I don't know if it does makes sence, but in 12.2.16B1 (or around
> > that version) and 12.2.somethingT SSS feature was introduced which also
> > pushed feature of terminating connections on Virtual-Access subinterface
> > and not interface. You can try to disable this using 'no virtual-template

>
> did not changed anything


I assume that you added that to config/saved config and reloaded router?
Still nothing?

> (actually there's still a Virtual-access cloned from DIaler0 ???)
>


It seems like that from your output. It's kind of a strange that you have
both dialer interface and VA cloned from it. Are you sure it worked with
older IOS as it is now?

I would expect that VA interface is clonned from VT and not Dialer0
interface, and of course, that you bound VT to ATM, not Dialer interface.
Have you checked examples on CCO how to configure ADSL line with VA?

> > subinterfaces'. Again, I'm not sure it is the problem, but this is
> > something new introduced with virtual-access and you said that it worked
> > with older IOS, and I AFAIK, "PQ will not work on subinterfaces and
> > tunnel interfaces".

>
> That's stupid, isn't it ?
>


No, actually not stupid at all. There are good reasons why PQ doesn't
work on subinterfaces and tunnel interfaces but both of us will have to
wait for "Inside Cisco IOS architecture 2" to understnd why (I actually
heard why that works this way from a DE guy, but i forgot ).

To conclude: You should take a look at some workaraund and put PQ on some
physical interface where your traffic goes trough. (ATM???)

--Ivan.
 
Reply With Quote
 
JustMe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2004


Ivan Ostres wrote:

> In article <40abe0ec$0$26899$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)i
> says...
>
>>
>>Ivan Ostres wrote:
>>
>>>First, I would like to note that you are using T train (12.3). I don't
>>>like to use it because lately, T train has introduces new features, but
>>>introduces new bugs as well. It does not mean, "don't ever use T train",
>>>just be carefull and be aware that this could be a problem.

>>
>>I checked with the latests 12.3T : same problem
>>

>
>
> This doesn't prove anything, I'm afraid. But I don't think it's a bug, I
> just note that as an option.


(sorry I meant 12.3 standard)

>
>
>
>>>Second, I don't know if it does makes sence, but in 12.2.16B1 (or around
>>>that version) and 12.2.somethingT SSS feature was introduced which also
>>>pushed feature of terminating connections on Virtual-Access subinterface
>>>and not interface. You can try to disable this using 'no virtual-template

>>
>>did not changed anything

>
>
> I assume that you added that to config/saved config and reloaded router?
> Still nothing?


yeap !

>
>
>>(actually there's still a Virtual-access cloned from DIaler0 ???)
>>

>
>
> It seems like that from your output. It's kind of a strange that you have
> both dialer interface and VA cloned from it. Are you sure it worked with
> older IOS as it is now?


Nearly sure...

>
> I would expect that VA interface is clonned from VT and not Dialer0


The show interface says "cloned from dialer0"

> interface, and of course, that you bound VT to ATM, not Dialer interface.
> Have you checked examples on CCO how to configure ADSL line with VA?


yes looks similar

>
>
>>>subinterfaces'. Again, I'm not sure it is the problem, but this is
>>>something new introduced with virtual-access and you said that it worked
>>>with older IOS, and I AFAIK, "PQ will not work on subinterfaces and
>>>tunnel interfaces".

>>
>>That's stupid, isn't it ?
>>

>
>
> No, actually not stupid at all. There are good reasons why PQ doesn't
> work on subinterfaces and tunnel interfaces but both of us will have to
> wait for "Inside Cisco IOS architecture 2" to understnd why (I actually
> heard why that works this way from a DE guy, but i forgot ).
>
> To conclude: You should take a look at some workaraund and put PQ on some
> physical interface where your traffic goes trough. (ATM???)


I only have on PVC whithin which IP traffic is encasulated with PPP

The ATM link doesn't see the IP traffic, thus is unable to do PQ on it
(I guess)

I really don't understand how I could solve my QOS problem if I'm unable
to apply a queuing strategy on the PPP link

>
> --Ivan.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Ivan Ostres
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-20-2004
In article <40ac7af3$0$26908$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)i
says...
> > I assume that you added that to config/saved config and reloaded router?
> > Still nothing?

>
> yeap !
>


Damn, I was pretty sure that it was due to VA subinterfaces . Now I
have to admit that I don't have any more ideas (your note that ATM
interface does not know about IP is probably true - it's just ppp drive-
trough).

If I were you, I would revert to old config and old IOS in which
"everything" works OK. If that is the one (IOS) that have a bug, I would
report it to TAC. I think they would allow you to download the image that
corrects bug and is in the same mainline as your old image with a bug.

Sorry for not be able to help more

--Ivan.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WPA-PSK is driving me nuts - HELP? Sven Pran Wireless Networking 11 05-30-2008 01:19 PM
ViewState timing driving me nuts - please help Frank ASP .Net 6 02-20-2006 12:26 PM
Help with XML-SAX program ... it's driving me nuts ... mitsura@skynet.be Python 2 01-31-2006 01:17 PM
Could not load type(Driving me NUTS) PLS HELP Kiran ASP .Net 4 06-18-2005 07:22 AM
RAILS is driving me NUTS!!! Help... Glenn Ruby 1 03-02-2005 09:54 AM



Advertisments