• Juniper Qos Configuration

Juniper Networks Juniper WLAN Controllers WLC2, 8, 200, 216, 800, 880, 2800. To WMM-Power Save QoS: MX-200-AB48EE# show serviceprofile s1 General attributes SSID name: s1 SSID type: crypto. VIEW Configuration Guide: Juniper Networks WLAN Controllers WLC2, 8, 200, 216, 800, 880 2800 with WLA372, 422, 432, 522, 522E, 523, 523E APs (formerly. Hi, I am in the middle of creating a new QoS design strategy for a MPLS network with ASR9k Core and 76k and Juniper PE routers. I have some doubts and I face some problems finding enough information about the integration of the new ASR9k.

I want to apply a Voice filter to an interface which will mark and classify any voice traffic that comes in via a interface on an MX104 router.On Cisco this is pretty easy as you can just match by protocols including H323, SIP, RTP etc.On Juniper it doesn't have these options under protocol. I can match by port so I can do UDP port 5060 but this alone won't really QoS voice.Other than matching by destination IP or by marking before it get's to the MX104 is there another way on the MX104 to match voice traffic and mark/classify it?thanks. This traffic really should be marked already by the time it reaches your router, i.e.

Marking should be done on the switches, or even on the phone equipment itself. Doing multifield classification on the router like you're talking about is far from ideal (it won't help with congestion on the uplink to the router for example).I can do UDP port 5060 but this alone won't really QoS voiceWell, you're absolutely correct there as port 5060 is used by a VoIP control protocol, not the actual voice data itself.

Go grab the Junos Day One Basic QoS guide. Very informative.Here's the breakdown for how you're going to get your traffic into your forwarding-classes (FC for short). The big question: To trust or not to trust?Does your traffic have existing markings that you trust? Ok, you can use a Behavior Aggregate Classifier (BA for short).

You can use DCSP, 802.1p, etc. The device reads the headers, see the marking, and based on how you setup the BA classifier, it dumps the traffic in the appropriate FC.Don't trust your traffic's markings or it doesn't have any? It's Multi-Field Classifier (aka MF) time. You write a firewall filter that you apply to your ingress interface as an input filter.

Your filter can look at a crapload of things in the packet, and then your actions are things like forwarding-class and loss-priority. This is generally the place you'd apply a policer as well (both discard and re-class types).Congrats, your traffic has now been classified. What do you do with it? That's about the schedulers, which are applied to the FCs by a scheduler-map. You can also do things like (re)-mark traffic at transmit time.

If you're doing an MF classifier, you almost certainly want to re-mark. This is also handy when you have a dumb app/device that marks everything as EF, but doesn't need to. Your MF classifier can ID this traffic and out it in a different FC, other than EF that way.The great news?

Juniper Qos Configuration

All of these concepts apply to anything that runs Junos. There are occasionally subtle differences, in places like Per-VLAN queueing on MX, or that FC-set abstraction thing that you find on QFX, but the principles all remain the same. FYI, on many Juniper boxes you can't mark traffic on ingress.

Priorities of some tasks can be adjusted according to your wishes. An ability to affect the development of the emulator. Of course, a thank you for your support!.

Only certain platforms/modules do this, however I believe they've finally added support for it in the MX on Trio based line cards (which 104 has).Most JUNOS boxes do it on egress which has always been a goofy way of doing QoS IMHO. I ran into several situations in the past where this hindered me as I couldn't differentiate traffic once it gets to the egress.On Junos traffic comes in, gets classified and put into forwarding classes.

Then on egress the traffic is marked based on those forwarding classes, thus you lose the ingress classification pieces that you might want to mark. This can be worked around if you have a lot of forwarding classes, but some boxes only had 4 or 8 in the past.

If you're bored you can read through this thread I had back in 2008 about it.In my case I was working with M series and lower end EX platforms, so I believe most of this information is still true, but not applying to platforms like the MX. I kicked the thread off with this question and basically got a bunch of 'yeap, that's it & its frustrating answers'Basically there are times that you will rewrite traffic that might already be marked that you don't want remarked again. With the implementation of this taking place on egress there isn't anything that can be done about it, hence why people wanted Juniper to support ingress marking capabilities.Hope this helps'With Juniper devices you apply an input firewall filter that matches thetraffic and then you define it to a forwarding class. Traffic is thenforwarded through the device and once it reaches its egress interface usingthe rewrite-map it marks the packet CoS information based on theforwarding-class the packet was defined to. Also as we know, if filtersaren't applied to force traffic forwarding classification the 'classifier'map is used to correlate the CoS markings to forwarding classes by default.We also know that if a rewrite-map isn't defined the traffic passes out andinterface unmodified.Here's my question. Say I have a router with 3 interfaces, 2 interfaces areinput and 1 output. Interface #1 and #2 are input and #3 would be output.

Oninterface #1 I want to mark the traffic as its currently unmarked and I wantit marked to DSCP EF(46). I have to apply the firewall filter and definethis traffic into the expedited forwarding class. To make traffic egress ofthe router have this marking I have to also apply the dscp rewrite-map oninterface #3.

On interface #2 the traffic is already marked to DSCP43. As Ido not have a firewall filter applied, the default classifer map kicks inand maps the DSCP 43 traffic to expedited forwarding class as well.

Oncethis traffic exits the router out of interface #3, the rewrite map that hadto be defined for interface #1 will rewrite this traffic to DSCP 46,overwriting my original markets. Now I cannot differentiate the trafficfurther on in the network.'