After doing the initial tests of the HQF framework, I wanted to check how “hierarchical” it is. I’ve created a policy-map (as before) allocating various bandwidth percentages to individual TCP/UDP ports. One of the classes had a child service policy that allocated 70% of the bandwidth to TCP and 30% of the bandwidth to UDP (going to the same port#), with fair queuing being used in the TCP subclass.

Short summary: HQF worked brilliantly.

Here’s the relevant configuration: the per-interface policy …

policy-map WAN
 class P5001
   bandwidth percent 20
   fair-queue
 class P5003
   bandwidth percent 30
   service-policy Intra
 class class-default
   fair-queue

… and the child policy:

policy-map Intra
 class TCP
   bandwidth percent 70
   fair-queue
 class class-default
   bandwidth percent 30

You’d have to create the child policy first, IOS would not allow you to attach a non-existent policy-map as a service-policy within a class.

I’ve applied the policy-map to a 2 Mbps point-to-point link and started various traffic sources (similar to the previous tests).

Please read the previous HQF-related posts to find a detailed lab description, complete router configurations and traffic source descriptions.

As before, the show policy-map interface command can be used to inspect the QoS state of an interface. The printout clearly documents the hierarchical queuing policies and shows

a1#show policy-map interface ser 0/1/0
 Serial0/1/0

  Service-policy output: WAN

    Class-map: P5001 (match-all)
      303 packets, 367480 bytes
      30 second offered rate 409000 bps, drop rate 15000 bps
      Match: access-group name P5001
      Queueing
      queue limit 64 packets
      (queue depth/total drops/no-buffer drops/flowdrops) 111/0/0/0
      (pkts output/bytes output) 303/367480
      bandwidth 20% (400 kbps)
      Fair-queue: per-flow queue limit 16

    Class-map: P5003 (match-all)
      5407 packets, 1706420 bytes
      30 second offered rate 2059000 bps, drop rate 810000 bps
      Match: access-group name P5003
      Queueing
      queue limit 64 packets
      (queue depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 174/4465/0
      (pkts output/bytes output) 945/546300
      bandwidth 30% (600 kbps)

      Service-policy : Intra

        Class-map: TCP (match-all)
          315 packets, 382500 bytes
          30 second offered rate 418000 bps, drop rate 11000 bps
          Match: access-group name TCP
          Queueing
          queue limit 64 packets
          (queue depth/total drops/no-buffer drops/flowdrops) 107/0/0/0
          (pkts output/bytes output) 315/382500
          bandwidth 70% (420 kbps)
          Fair-queue: per-flow queue limit 16

        Class-map: class-default (match-any)
          5092 packets, 1323920 bytes
          30 second offered rate 1620000 bps, drop rate 1500000 bps
          Match: any
          Queueing
          queue limit 64 packets
          (queue depth/total drops/no-buffer drops) 64/4466/0
          (pkts output/bytes output) 630/163800
          bandwidth 30% (180 kbps)

    Class-map: class-default (match-any)
      5097 packets, 1325220 bytes
      30 second offered rate 1635000 bps, drop rate 733000 bps
      Match: any
      Queueing
      queue limit 64 packets
      (queue depth/total drops/no-buffer drops/flowdrops) 18/1605/0/1605
      (pkts output/bytes output) 3496/908540
      Fair-queue: per-flow queue limit 16

The results of the iperf program matched the expectations very well: P5003 class gets 30% of 2Mbps (600 kbps) and the TCP traffic gets 70% of that (420 kbps). With the TCP overhead, the goodput should be slightly higher than 400 kbps (and it is).

$ iperf -c 10.0.20.10 -t 3600 -p 5003 -i 60 -P 10
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.0.20.10, TCP port 5003
TCP window size: 8.00 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
…
[SUM] 480.0-540.0 sec  2.87 MBytes   401 Kbits/sec