Problem with QoS on 5520 using EPM
Bookmark this page:
 Yahoo!
 Google
 Windows Live
 del.icio.us
 digg
 Netscape
|
|
||||||||||
|
Posted by bar on November 17, 2006, 3:02 pm
Please log in for more thread options policies created by Enterprise Policy Manager for the 55xx Ethernet Routing Switches are not behaving as expected. Our configuration is basically stacks of 470/460 Ethernet switches or 5510/5520 switches with two gigabit uplinks to a pair of ERS8600 using SMLT. Our QoS policy is very simple; all access ports have ports set in 'unrestricted' mode and packets are re-marked with expedited forwarding if they have a source IP address within our IP telephony subnet range. The uplink ports are then set as trusted as are all the core ports (DSCP enabled, core). This configuration works fine for the 470/460 switches but not for the 55xx stacks. On closer examination the problem appears to be with the 'trusted' uplink ports as defined by EPM. If we configure 'exactly the same policy' using the web browser on the 55xx the policy works as expected! With over 100 stacks to configure this is obviously not as scaleable as using EPM. Has anyone experienced this, or can think of a work around using EPM? Thanks, Bar. | ||||||||||
| Similar Threads | Posted |
| Problem with QoS on 5520 using EPM | November 17, 2006, 3:02 pm |
| 5520 interoperability with HP 5308xl | December 23, 2005, 9:39 pm |
| 5520 Boot Error | October 26, 2006, 9:29 am |
| nortel Baystack 5520-24T ethernet switch | December 14, 2005, 12:49 pm |
| Odd PRI problem on 81c | April 4, 2006, 11:31 pm |
| problem with NAM vm box | June 1, 2006, 10:52 am |
| Problem. | December 21, 2006, 8:07 am |
| Callpilot Problem | March 9, 2005, 2:14 pm |
| Interesting problem | August 31, 2005, 1:02 pm |
| MICS 7.0 and PRI problem | October 29, 2005, 2:48 am |
| Contivity 221 problem | March 1, 2006, 7:45 pm |
| Found the problem | April 18, 2006, 10:22 pm |
| NAM 4 interesting problem | July 25, 2007, 4:43 pm |
| Problem with DN 88XX through ACD | August 14, 2007, 9:49 am |
| Re: Congress IS the problem | June 29, 2008, 11:46 am |