Trouble disabling dot1p and Diffserv examination

[Anonymous]

Hi,

First response might be why!

The reason I want to do this (and hopefully I have my understanding correctly), is that I don't want to trust the QoS markings at layer 2 or 3 but instead be more precise about controlling the prioritisation of traffic through policy.

So in my case I have created a policy that looks at the RTP and Control traffic of Mitel IP phones and it is intended on putting that classified traffic into their respective queues.

It seems as though this is working, as I can observe traffic going into QP3 and QP6 via the show ports qos monitor command (see my policy config at bottom).

The problem I have is that I am also seeing traffic going into QP4 and QP5 as well, and I think it's the voice traffic based on its 802.1p marking.

So I've gone through the commands disabling dot1p and diffserv but in each case you get various messages and a reconfiguration of all the ports to 'enable diffserv replacement ports x.x qosprofile Qp6' etc

Some of the message are:
# After running command "disable diffserv replacement ports x:x"

WARNING: The diffserv replacement status was configured via network management which
requires dot1p replacement on all ports.

# After running command "unconfigure diffserv examination"

The below config is added to all the ports?!:

enable diffserv replacement ports 1:1 qosprofile QP6
enable diffserv replacement ports 1:2 qosprofile QP6
enable diffserv replacement ports 1:3 qosprofile QP6

# After running command "disable dot1p examination ports X:X" WARNING: The intended usage of this command is when another QoS traffic
grouping (e.g. diffserv examination, port QoS, vlan QoS, ACL QoS) is
configured. Disabling all QoS traffic groupings will still result in 802.1p QoS selection.

So it sounds as though that last statement is saying it will default to 802.1p QoS selection when all others are disabled, which might explain why I keep seeing traffic going into other queues even though I've removed all references of examination?!

Think I just need some clarity to help make sense of the messages, results and perfect what I would like to achieve.

Below is a copy of the policy configuration (which seems to work)... this is on a X450G2, Version 22.3.1.4

configure policy profile 11 name "Mitel Phones" pvid 4095

configure policy rule 11 udpsourceportIP 50000 mask 12 forward cos 6
configure policy rule 11 udpsourceportIP 50016 mask 11 forward cos 6
configure policy rule 11 udpsourceportIP 50048 mask 9 forward cos 6
configure policy rule 11 udpsourceportIP 50176 mask 10 forward cos 6
configure policy rule 11 udpsourceportIP 50240 mask 11 forward cos 6
configure policy rule 11 udpsourceportIP 50272 mask 14 forward cos 6
configure policy rule 11 udpsourceportIP 50276 mask 15 forward cos 6
configure policy rule 11 udpdestportIP 50000 mask 12 forward cos 6
configure policy rule 11 udpdestportIP 50016 mask 11 forward cos 6
configure policy rule 11 udpdestportIP 50048 mask 9 forward cos 6
configure policy rule 11 udpdestportIP 50176 mask 10 forward cos 6
configure policy rule 11 udpdestportIP 50240 mask 11 forward cos 6
configure policy rule 11 udpdestportIP 50272 mask 14 forward cos 6
configure policy rule 11 udpdestportIP 50276 mask 15 forward cos 6
configure policy rule 11 tcpsourceportIP 6900 mask 14 forward cos 3
configure policy rule 11 tcpsourceportIP 6904 mask 13 forward cos 3
configure policy rule 11 tcpsourceportIP 6912 mask 10 forward cos 3
configure policy rule 11 tcpsourceportIP 6976 mask 12 forward cos 3
configure policy rule 11 tcpsourceportIP 6992 mask 13 forward cos 3
configure policy rule 11 tcpdestportIP 6900 mask 14 forward cos 3
configure policy rule 11 tcpdestportIP 6904 mask 13 forward cos 3
configure policy rule 11 tcpdestportIP 6912 mask 10 forward cos 3
configure policy rule 11 tcpdestportIP 6976 mask 12 forward cos 3
configure policy rule 11 tcpdestportIP 6992 mask 13 forward cos 3

enable policy

Many thanks in advance

[Anonymous]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for replying.... right, so that kind of explains it, that's also a good idea about the mapping, should have thought of that.

I'll give that a go and let you know how I get on.

Thanks.