«

I'd like to implement a simple priority-based queueing scheme on a GRE
tunnel (e.g. making all telnet traffic higher priority than any other
traffic), but unfortunately GRE tunnels don't allow the use of priority-list/
priority-group. So: what's the simplest alternative to achieve the same
thing? I.e., approaching the level of simplicity of priority-list. I've
browsed through the Cisco QoS documentation and I can see a few ways to
approach this, but I'm looking for the most direct way--the tree that's
obscured by the forest of QoS documentation, you might say.

A short config snippet would be much appreciated.

- John

In article <. net>, John Caruso wrote:
> I'd like to implement a simple priority-based queueing scheme on a GRE
> tunnel (e.g. making all telnet traffic higher priority than any other
> traffic), but unfortunately GRE tunnels don't allow the use of priority-list/
> priority-group. So: what's the simplest alternative to achieve the same
> thing? I.e., approaching the level of simplicity of priority-list. I've
> browsed through the Cisco QoS documentation and I can see a few ways to
> approach this, but I'm looking for the most direct way

I should have said that I *can't* see any way to do specifically what I'm
talking about, since using class-map/policy-map, it looks like the main
priority options are to set either the total Kbits/sec or the percentage
of total bandwidth. I don't see any way to just do what priority-list
does--i.e., put certain traffic into a high priority queue which will
*always* be serviced first.

Maybe what I want to do isn't possible for tunnel interfaces, and that's
why there are no responses. If so, though, I'm pretty surprised that
something that's so easy to do with priority queueing is so difficult to
do with the more general QoS constructs.

- John

John,

This should work for what you're looking for:
class-map match-all telnet
match protocol telnet
!
!
policy-map tunnel-child
class telnet
priority 290
policy-map tunnel-parent
class class-default
shape average 300000
service-policy tunnel-child

interface Tunnel10
ip address 1.1.1.1 255.255.255.0
service-policy output tunnel-parent
tunnel source 2.2.2.2
tunnel destination 3.3.3.3



Basically you need to define the total amount of available bandwidth
and tell it to shape to that in the "parent" policy map, and apply a
child policy map to define how it should get broken up. Let me know if
this works!
-Dave

John Caruso wrote:
> In article <. net>,
John Caruso wrote:
> > I'd like to implement a simple priority-based queueing scheme on a
GRE
> > tunnel (e.g. making all telnet traffic higher priority than any
other
> > traffic), but unfortunately GRE tunnels don't allow the use of
priority-list/
> > priority-group. So: what's the simplest alternative to achieve the
same
> > thing? I.e., approaching the level of simplicity of priority-list.
I've
> > browsed through the Cisco QoS documentation and I can see a few
ways to
> > approach this, but I'm looking for the most direct way
>
> I should have said that I *can't* see any way to do specifically what
I'm
> talking about, since using class-map/policy-map, it looks like the
main
> priority options are to set either the total Kbits/sec or the
percentage
> of total bandwidth. I don't see any way to just do what
priority-list
> does--i.e., put certain traffic into a high priority queue which will
> *always* be serviced first.
>
> Maybe what I want to do isn't possible for tunnel interfaces, and
that's
> why there are no responses. If so, though, I'm pretty surprised that
> something that's so easy to do with priority queueing is so difficult
to
> do with the more general QoS constructs.
>
> - John