Please help ! (IOS is driving me nuts !)

Discussion in 'Cisco' started by JustMe, May 19, 2004.

  1. JustMe

    JustMe Guest

    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
     
    JustMe, May 19, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. JustMe

    Ivan Ostres Guest

    In article <40ab0744$0$10206$>, 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.
     
    Ivan Ostres, May 19, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. JustMe

    JustMe Guest

    Ivan Ostres wrote:

    > In article <40ab0744$0$10206$>, 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.
     
    JustMe, May 19, 2004
    #3
  4. JustMe

    Ivan Ostres Guest

    In article <40ab4aeb$0$10196$>, 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.
     
    Ivan Ostres, May 19, 2004
    #4
  5. JustMe

    JustMe Guest

    Ivan Ostres wrote:

    > In article <40ab4aeb$0$10196$>, 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.
    >
    >
     
    JustMe, May 19, 2004
    #5
  6. JustMe

    Ivan Ostres Guest

    In article <40abe0ec$0$26899$>, 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.
     
    Ivan Ostres, May 20, 2004
    #6
  7. JustMe

    JustMe Guest

    Ivan Ostres wrote:

    > In article <40abe0ec$0$26899$>, 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.
     
    JustMe, May 20, 2004
    #7
  8. JustMe

    Ivan Ostres Guest

    In article <40ac7af3$0$26908$>, 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.
     
    Ivan Ostres, May 20, 2004
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    979
  2. Replies:
    14
    Views:
    962
  3. Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,459
  4. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,641
    Aaron Leonard
    Apr 10, 2006
  5. Sven Pran

    WPA-PSK is driving me nuts - HELP?

    Sven Pran, Jan 1, 2008, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,519
    Donna Luciw
    May 30, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page