Bandwidth limit Cisco 3400 ME problemHow can I reasonably verify my QoS configuration is working?Cisco ME3x00 - QoS for layer 2 trunksLimit bandwidth in cisco router with policy-map doesn't workUnderstand the output of “sh policy-map int” in Cisco IOSMaximum Classes in Cisco HQF PolicyHow to Block Torrents Using NBARUse bandwidth and shape concurrentMLS QoS to MQC conversionQoS shaper, shapes traffic without dropping packets?Service Policy CISCO 7606 not work

Can other pieces capture a threatening piece and prevent a checkmate?

Have any astronauts/cosmonauts died in space?

Air travel with refrigerated insulin

Hot air balloons as primitive bombers

Imaginary part of expression too difficult to calculate

Do I need an EFI partition for each 18.04 ubuntu I have on my HD?

Can a university suspend a student even when he has left university?

Does fire aspect on a sword, destroy mob drops?

Turning a hard to access nut?

Do I need to convey a moral for each of my blog post?

How can I create URL shortcuts/redirects for task/diff IDs in Phabricator?

Have the tides ever turned twice on any open problem?

Homology of the fiber

Asserting that Atheism and Theism are both faith based positions

How can a new country break out from a developed country without war?

Can "few" be used as a subject? If so, what is the rule?

Why is indicated airspeed rather than ground speed used during the takeoff roll?

Fair way to split coins

Was World War I a war of liberals against authoritarians?

DisplayForm problem with pi in FractionBox

Print a physical multiplication table

What is it called when someone votes for an option that's not their first choice?

Isn't the word "experience" wrongly used in this context?

Weird lines in Microsoft Word



Bandwidth limit Cisco 3400 ME problem


How can I reasonably verify my QoS configuration is working?Cisco ME3x00 - QoS for layer 2 trunksLimit bandwidth in cisco router with policy-map doesn't workUnderstand the output of “sh policy-map int” in Cisco IOSMaximum Classes in Cisco HQF PolicyHow to Block Torrents Using NBARUse bandwidth and shape concurrentMLS QoS to MQC conversionQoS shaper, shapes traffic without dropping packets?Service Policy CISCO 7606 not work













6















I want to limit bandwidth (speed) of interface of Cisco 3400 ME switch.



I did these:



policy-map parent
class class-default
shape average 64000


And in gi0/2 interface I apply it: service-policy output parent



It gives me this error:



QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 64000 bps is not achievable in within 1% of configuration.
Closest value(s) are: 11111120 bps, 5882368 bps


What am I doing wrong? How can I limit bandwidth of gigabit interface to 64 kbit/s?










share|improve this question
























  • What IOS version are you using? Please post output of show version.

    – Cown
    14 hours ago






  • 2





    You did perform nothing wrong, it is some limitation of model. You can google "achievable in hw within 1% of configuration" and check a lot of articles about this. As I understand, you can try to use 10Mbps speed on the link for using 100Kbps (1%) for shaping, but no less.

    – Konstantin Goncharenko
    14 hours ago











  • @KonstantinGoncharenko, there is no speed command appliable, because it is SFP port.

    – it dev
    14 hours ago











  • @Cown, IOS version: (ME340x-METROBASE-M) Version 12.2(53)SE

    – it dev
    14 hours ago











  • @itdev read the answer. There's nothing you can do.

    – Cown
    14 hours ago















6















I want to limit bandwidth (speed) of interface of Cisco 3400 ME switch.



I did these:



policy-map parent
class class-default
shape average 64000


And in gi0/2 interface I apply it: service-policy output parent



It gives me this error:



QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 64000 bps is not achievable in within 1% of configuration.
Closest value(s) are: 11111120 bps, 5882368 bps


What am I doing wrong? How can I limit bandwidth of gigabit interface to 64 kbit/s?










share|improve this question
























  • What IOS version are you using? Please post output of show version.

    – Cown
    14 hours ago






  • 2





    You did perform nothing wrong, it is some limitation of model. You can google "achievable in hw within 1% of configuration" and check a lot of articles about this. As I understand, you can try to use 10Mbps speed on the link for using 100Kbps (1%) for shaping, but no less.

    – Konstantin Goncharenko
    14 hours ago











  • @KonstantinGoncharenko, there is no speed command appliable, because it is SFP port.

    – it dev
    14 hours ago











  • @Cown, IOS version: (ME340x-METROBASE-M) Version 12.2(53)SE

    – it dev
    14 hours ago











  • @itdev read the answer. There's nothing you can do.

    – Cown
    14 hours ago













6












6








6








I want to limit bandwidth (speed) of interface of Cisco 3400 ME switch.



I did these:



policy-map parent
class class-default
shape average 64000


And in gi0/2 interface I apply it: service-policy output parent



It gives me this error:



QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 64000 bps is not achievable in within 1% of configuration.
Closest value(s) are: 11111120 bps, 5882368 bps


What am I doing wrong? How can I limit bandwidth of gigabit interface to 64 kbit/s?










share|improve this question
















I want to limit bandwidth (speed) of interface of Cisco 3400 ME switch.



I did these:



policy-map parent
class class-default
shape average 64000


And in gi0/2 interface I apply it: service-policy output parent



It gives me this error:



QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 64000 bps is not achievable in within 1% of configuration.
Closest value(s) are: 11111120 bps, 5882368 bps


What am I doing wrong? How can I limit bandwidth of gigabit interface to 64 kbit/s?







cisco cisco-ios bandwidth troubleshooting policy-map






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 14 hours ago









Cown

6,61931031




6,61931031










asked 15 hours ago









it devit dev

322




322












  • What IOS version are you using? Please post output of show version.

    – Cown
    14 hours ago






  • 2





    You did perform nothing wrong, it is some limitation of model. You can google "achievable in hw within 1% of configuration" and check a lot of articles about this. As I understand, you can try to use 10Mbps speed on the link for using 100Kbps (1%) for shaping, but no less.

    – Konstantin Goncharenko
    14 hours ago











  • @KonstantinGoncharenko, there is no speed command appliable, because it is SFP port.

    – it dev
    14 hours ago











  • @Cown, IOS version: (ME340x-METROBASE-M) Version 12.2(53)SE

    – it dev
    14 hours ago











  • @itdev read the answer. There's nothing you can do.

    – Cown
    14 hours ago

















  • What IOS version are you using? Please post output of show version.

    – Cown
    14 hours ago






  • 2





    You did perform nothing wrong, it is some limitation of model. You can google "achievable in hw within 1% of configuration" and check a lot of articles about this. As I understand, you can try to use 10Mbps speed on the link for using 100Kbps (1%) for shaping, but no less.

    – Konstantin Goncharenko
    14 hours ago











  • @KonstantinGoncharenko, there is no speed command appliable, because it is SFP port.

    – it dev
    14 hours ago











  • @Cown, IOS version: (ME340x-METROBASE-M) Version 12.2(53)SE

    – it dev
    14 hours ago











  • @itdev read the answer. There's nothing you can do.

    – Cown
    14 hours ago
















What IOS version are you using? Please post output of show version.

– Cown
14 hours ago





What IOS version are you using? Please post output of show version.

– Cown
14 hours ago




2




2





You did perform nothing wrong, it is some limitation of model. You can google "achievable in hw within 1% of configuration" and check a lot of articles about this. As I understand, you can try to use 10Mbps speed on the link for using 100Kbps (1%) for shaping, but no less.

– Konstantin Goncharenko
14 hours ago





You did perform nothing wrong, it is some limitation of model. You can google "achievable in hw within 1% of configuration" and check a lot of articles about this. As I understand, you can try to use 10Mbps speed on the link for using 100Kbps (1%) for shaping, but no less.

– Konstantin Goncharenko
14 hours ago













@KonstantinGoncharenko, there is no speed command appliable, because it is SFP port.

– it dev
14 hours ago





@KonstantinGoncharenko, there is no speed command appliable, because it is SFP port.

– it dev
14 hours ago













@Cown, IOS version: (ME340x-METROBASE-M) Version 12.2(53)SE

– it dev
14 hours ago





@Cown, IOS version: (ME340x-METROBASE-M) Version 12.2(53)SE

– it dev
14 hours ago













@itdev read the answer. There's nothing you can do.

– Cown
14 hours ago





@itdev read the answer. There's nothing you can do.

– Cown
14 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















8














The problem you describe is explained by Tassos (CCIE #19858) in the attached link below. I've copied his complete description and added the Cisco bug which relates to the problem you have.



Please notice, that the issue has been fixed on the newer enhanced ME 3400-E.




Everyone using ME-3400 switches might have noticed the following error
message when trying to configure an output policy-map under an
interface:




QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 4000000 bps is not 
achievable in hw within 1% of configuration.
Closest value(s) are: 11111120 bps, 5882368 bps



Cisco documentation is cryptic (as always) about the details of this,
but it has to do with some hardware limitation of this specific
platform. In particular the granularity of the hardware for the
shaping action is somehow based on pre-configured values.



The ME-3400 (as most lower end switches) has physical memory buffers,
which can be used by IOS only in bunches of specific (pre-configured)
sizes. In routers and high end switches, QoS is usually implemented in
software through the use of memory pools, which allows the IOS to use
parts of buffers with variable sizes.



Egress shaping on ME-3400 comes into two categories : Port shaping and
Class-based shaping. Port shaping applies to all traffic passing
through an interface, while class-based shaping applies to specific
classes of traffic leaving an interface. Each one of them is using a
different formula in order to give you all the supported values.



Port shaping values are based on the following formula:




(1 - 16/N) * IfSpeed



Where:



N is a value between 17 and 64000 IfSpeed is the interface speed : 10
Mbps, 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps The result in then rounded up to a multiple of
16. An equivalent excel formula would be : CEILING((1-16/N)*IfSpeed;16)



Class-based shaping values are based on the following much simpler
formula:




1/N * IfSpeed



Where: N is a value between 1 and 15625 IfSpeed is the interface speed
: 10 Mbps, 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps



You can see some possible values in the table below:



According to the above table, in the port shaper the low end
granularity is very coarse and the high end granularity is very dense,
while the opposite happens in the class-based shaper. So there is no
possibility you can have a <58 Mbps port shaper for 1 Gbps interfaces,
as there is no possibility to have <5,8 Mbps port shaper for 100 Mbps
interfaces. Similarly you can't have a 700 Mbps class-based shaper on
a 1000 Mbps interface, nor a 80 Mbps class-based shaper on a 100 Mbps
interface.



Let's take for example the following policy-map configuration which is
applied on a 1 Gbps interface.




 policy-map CHILD class TEST-CLASS
shape average 100000 policy-map PARENT class class-default
shape average 930000000 service-policy CHILD



If you try to change the shaper of the child class to a value >500
Mbps, you'll get a warning like the following:




 3400(config-pmap-c)#shape average 700000000 QoS: Configuration failed.
The configured rate 700000000 bps is not achievable in hw within 1% of
configuration.
Closest value(s) are: 930000000 bps, 500000000 bps



If you check the formula for the class-based shaper (or have a quick
look at the table), 930000000 is not actually a valid value to
configure, but it gets printed because this is the limit imposed by
the parent class. You just have to ignore it.



If you need specific values you might want to try changing the speed
of the interface : choosing between 10/100/1000 should be easy for
BaseTX interfaces, while 100/1000 Mbps SFPs exist for the SFP-based
ones.



Also, it's strongly recommended that you disable port speed
autonegotiation when you attach an output policy map to a 10/100/1000
port, to prevent the port from autonegotiating to a rate that would
make the output policy map invalid.



Keep in mind that ME-3400E (the new enhanced version of ME-3400)
implements a improved version of Egress Shaping Granularity, which
uses a simpler linear formula. It's 64 Kbps for the class-based shaper
and 100/500/1000 Kbps for the 10/100/1000 Mbps port-based shaper (100
Kbps for 10 Mbps ports, 500 Kbps for 100 Mbps ports, 1000 Kbps for
1000 Mbps ports).




Cisco bug report for those who do not have access to Cisco:



ME3400 - inconsistent rate for hw shaper when queue-limit is changed
CSCsz52950




Description



Symptom:



If the queue-limit is configured on a policy-map with a shaper
attached the suggested configurabale rate gets changed.




policy-map test-shaper
class class-default
shape average 35000000

lan-me3400-1(config-pmap-c)#int g0/11
lan-me3400-1(config-if)#service-policy output test-shaper
QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 35000000 bps is not achievable in hw within 1% of configuration.
Closest value(s) are: 36000000 bps, 33333344 bps



Error using the default 160 packet queue [EXPECTED MESSAGE DUE TO
GRANULARITY - THIS IS NOT THE BUG]



========================================



Queue limit is changed to any value (therefore not to default any
more)




policy-map test-shaper
class class-default
shape average 35000000
queue-limit 200

lan-me3400-1(config-pmap-c)#int g0/11
lan-me3400-1(config-if)#
lan-me3400-1(config-if)#service-policy output test-shaper
QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 35000000 bps is not achievable in hw within 1% of configuration.
Closest value(s) are: 33333333 bps, 25000000 bps



Conditions:



Queue-limit is expressely defined.



Workaround:



Use the suggested value.



Further Problem Description:



The message is cosmetic as at hardware level there is no change when
the queue-limit is configured.




Tassos source: https://ccie-in-3-months.blogspot.com/2010/01/shaper-granularity-on-me-3400.html



Cisco bug search (requires CCO login): https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCsz52950






share|improve this answer






















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "496"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57723%2fbandwidth-limit-cisco-3400-me-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    8














    The problem you describe is explained by Tassos (CCIE #19858) in the attached link below. I've copied his complete description and added the Cisco bug which relates to the problem you have.



    Please notice, that the issue has been fixed on the newer enhanced ME 3400-E.




    Everyone using ME-3400 switches might have noticed the following error
    message when trying to configure an output policy-map under an
    interface:




    QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 4000000 bps is not 
    achievable in hw within 1% of configuration.
    Closest value(s) are: 11111120 bps, 5882368 bps



    Cisco documentation is cryptic (as always) about the details of this,
    but it has to do with some hardware limitation of this specific
    platform. In particular the granularity of the hardware for the
    shaping action is somehow based on pre-configured values.



    The ME-3400 (as most lower end switches) has physical memory buffers,
    which can be used by IOS only in bunches of specific (pre-configured)
    sizes. In routers and high end switches, QoS is usually implemented in
    software through the use of memory pools, which allows the IOS to use
    parts of buffers with variable sizes.



    Egress shaping on ME-3400 comes into two categories : Port shaping and
    Class-based shaping. Port shaping applies to all traffic passing
    through an interface, while class-based shaping applies to specific
    classes of traffic leaving an interface. Each one of them is using a
    different formula in order to give you all the supported values.



    Port shaping values are based on the following formula:




    (1 - 16/N) * IfSpeed



    Where:



    N is a value between 17 and 64000 IfSpeed is the interface speed : 10
    Mbps, 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps The result in then rounded up to a multiple of
    16. An equivalent excel formula would be : CEILING((1-16/N)*IfSpeed;16)



    Class-based shaping values are based on the following much simpler
    formula:




    1/N * IfSpeed



    Where: N is a value between 1 and 15625 IfSpeed is the interface speed
    : 10 Mbps, 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps



    You can see some possible values in the table below:



    According to the above table, in the port shaper the low end
    granularity is very coarse and the high end granularity is very dense,
    while the opposite happens in the class-based shaper. So there is no
    possibility you can have a <58 Mbps port shaper for 1 Gbps interfaces,
    as there is no possibility to have <5,8 Mbps port shaper for 100 Mbps
    interfaces. Similarly you can't have a 700 Mbps class-based shaper on
    a 1000 Mbps interface, nor a 80 Mbps class-based shaper on a 100 Mbps
    interface.



    Let's take for example the following policy-map configuration which is
    applied on a 1 Gbps interface.




     policy-map CHILD class TEST-CLASS
    shape average 100000 policy-map PARENT class class-default
    shape average 930000000 service-policy CHILD



    If you try to change the shaper of the child class to a value >500
    Mbps, you'll get a warning like the following:




     3400(config-pmap-c)#shape average 700000000 QoS: Configuration failed.
    The configured rate 700000000 bps is not achievable in hw within 1% of
    configuration.
    Closest value(s) are: 930000000 bps, 500000000 bps



    If you check the formula for the class-based shaper (or have a quick
    look at the table), 930000000 is not actually a valid value to
    configure, but it gets printed because this is the limit imposed by
    the parent class. You just have to ignore it.



    If you need specific values you might want to try changing the speed
    of the interface : choosing between 10/100/1000 should be easy for
    BaseTX interfaces, while 100/1000 Mbps SFPs exist for the SFP-based
    ones.



    Also, it's strongly recommended that you disable port speed
    autonegotiation when you attach an output policy map to a 10/100/1000
    port, to prevent the port from autonegotiating to a rate that would
    make the output policy map invalid.



    Keep in mind that ME-3400E (the new enhanced version of ME-3400)
    implements a improved version of Egress Shaping Granularity, which
    uses a simpler linear formula. It's 64 Kbps for the class-based shaper
    and 100/500/1000 Kbps for the 10/100/1000 Mbps port-based shaper (100
    Kbps for 10 Mbps ports, 500 Kbps for 100 Mbps ports, 1000 Kbps for
    1000 Mbps ports).




    Cisco bug report for those who do not have access to Cisco:



    ME3400 - inconsistent rate for hw shaper when queue-limit is changed
    CSCsz52950




    Description



    Symptom:



    If the queue-limit is configured on a policy-map with a shaper
    attached the suggested configurabale rate gets changed.




    policy-map test-shaper
    class class-default
    shape average 35000000

    lan-me3400-1(config-pmap-c)#int g0/11
    lan-me3400-1(config-if)#service-policy output test-shaper
    QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 35000000 bps is not achievable in hw within 1% of configuration.
    Closest value(s) are: 36000000 bps, 33333344 bps



    Error using the default 160 packet queue [EXPECTED MESSAGE DUE TO
    GRANULARITY - THIS IS NOT THE BUG]



    ========================================



    Queue limit is changed to any value (therefore not to default any
    more)




    policy-map test-shaper
    class class-default
    shape average 35000000
    queue-limit 200

    lan-me3400-1(config-pmap-c)#int g0/11
    lan-me3400-1(config-if)#
    lan-me3400-1(config-if)#service-policy output test-shaper
    QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 35000000 bps is not achievable in hw within 1% of configuration.
    Closest value(s) are: 33333333 bps, 25000000 bps



    Conditions:



    Queue-limit is expressely defined.



    Workaround:



    Use the suggested value.



    Further Problem Description:



    The message is cosmetic as at hardware level there is no change when
    the queue-limit is configured.




    Tassos source: https://ccie-in-3-months.blogspot.com/2010/01/shaper-granularity-on-me-3400.html



    Cisco bug search (requires CCO login): https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCsz52950






    share|improve this answer



























      8














      The problem you describe is explained by Tassos (CCIE #19858) in the attached link below. I've copied his complete description and added the Cisco bug which relates to the problem you have.



      Please notice, that the issue has been fixed on the newer enhanced ME 3400-E.




      Everyone using ME-3400 switches might have noticed the following error
      message when trying to configure an output policy-map under an
      interface:




      QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 4000000 bps is not 
      achievable in hw within 1% of configuration.
      Closest value(s) are: 11111120 bps, 5882368 bps



      Cisco documentation is cryptic (as always) about the details of this,
      but it has to do with some hardware limitation of this specific
      platform. In particular the granularity of the hardware for the
      shaping action is somehow based on pre-configured values.



      The ME-3400 (as most lower end switches) has physical memory buffers,
      which can be used by IOS only in bunches of specific (pre-configured)
      sizes. In routers and high end switches, QoS is usually implemented in
      software through the use of memory pools, which allows the IOS to use
      parts of buffers with variable sizes.



      Egress shaping on ME-3400 comes into two categories : Port shaping and
      Class-based shaping. Port shaping applies to all traffic passing
      through an interface, while class-based shaping applies to specific
      classes of traffic leaving an interface. Each one of them is using a
      different formula in order to give you all the supported values.



      Port shaping values are based on the following formula:




      (1 - 16/N) * IfSpeed



      Where:



      N is a value between 17 and 64000 IfSpeed is the interface speed : 10
      Mbps, 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps The result in then rounded up to a multiple of
      16. An equivalent excel formula would be : CEILING((1-16/N)*IfSpeed;16)



      Class-based shaping values are based on the following much simpler
      formula:




      1/N * IfSpeed



      Where: N is a value between 1 and 15625 IfSpeed is the interface speed
      : 10 Mbps, 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps



      You can see some possible values in the table below:



      According to the above table, in the port shaper the low end
      granularity is very coarse and the high end granularity is very dense,
      while the opposite happens in the class-based shaper. So there is no
      possibility you can have a <58 Mbps port shaper for 1 Gbps interfaces,
      as there is no possibility to have <5,8 Mbps port shaper for 100 Mbps
      interfaces. Similarly you can't have a 700 Mbps class-based shaper on
      a 1000 Mbps interface, nor a 80 Mbps class-based shaper on a 100 Mbps
      interface.



      Let's take for example the following policy-map configuration which is
      applied on a 1 Gbps interface.




       policy-map CHILD class TEST-CLASS
      shape average 100000 policy-map PARENT class class-default
      shape average 930000000 service-policy CHILD



      If you try to change the shaper of the child class to a value >500
      Mbps, you'll get a warning like the following:




       3400(config-pmap-c)#shape average 700000000 QoS: Configuration failed.
      The configured rate 700000000 bps is not achievable in hw within 1% of
      configuration.
      Closest value(s) are: 930000000 bps, 500000000 bps



      If you check the formula for the class-based shaper (or have a quick
      look at the table), 930000000 is not actually a valid value to
      configure, but it gets printed because this is the limit imposed by
      the parent class. You just have to ignore it.



      If you need specific values you might want to try changing the speed
      of the interface : choosing between 10/100/1000 should be easy for
      BaseTX interfaces, while 100/1000 Mbps SFPs exist for the SFP-based
      ones.



      Also, it's strongly recommended that you disable port speed
      autonegotiation when you attach an output policy map to a 10/100/1000
      port, to prevent the port from autonegotiating to a rate that would
      make the output policy map invalid.



      Keep in mind that ME-3400E (the new enhanced version of ME-3400)
      implements a improved version of Egress Shaping Granularity, which
      uses a simpler linear formula. It's 64 Kbps for the class-based shaper
      and 100/500/1000 Kbps for the 10/100/1000 Mbps port-based shaper (100
      Kbps for 10 Mbps ports, 500 Kbps for 100 Mbps ports, 1000 Kbps for
      1000 Mbps ports).




      Cisco bug report for those who do not have access to Cisco:



      ME3400 - inconsistent rate for hw shaper when queue-limit is changed
      CSCsz52950




      Description



      Symptom:



      If the queue-limit is configured on a policy-map with a shaper
      attached the suggested configurabale rate gets changed.




      policy-map test-shaper
      class class-default
      shape average 35000000

      lan-me3400-1(config-pmap-c)#int g0/11
      lan-me3400-1(config-if)#service-policy output test-shaper
      QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 35000000 bps is not achievable in hw within 1% of configuration.
      Closest value(s) are: 36000000 bps, 33333344 bps



      Error using the default 160 packet queue [EXPECTED MESSAGE DUE TO
      GRANULARITY - THIS IS NOT THE BUG]



      ========================================



      Queue limit is changed to any value (therefore not to default any
      more)




      policy-map test-shaper
      class class-default
      shape average 35000000
      queue-limit 200

      lan-me3400-1(config-pmap-c)#int g0/11
      lan-me3400-1(config-if)#
      lan-me3400-1(config-if)#service-policy output test-shaper
      QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 35000000 bps is not achievable in hw within 1% of configuration.
      Closest value(s) are: 33333333 bps, 25000000 bps



      Conditions:



      Queue-limit is expressely defined.



      Workaround:



      Use the suggested value.



      Further Problem Description:



      The message is cosmetic as at hardware level there is no change when
      the queue-limit is configured.




      Tassos source: https://ccie-in-3-months.blogspot.com/2010/01/shaper-granularity-on-me-3400.html



      Cisco bug search (requires CCO login): https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCsz52950






      share|improve this answer

























        8












        8








        8







        The problem you describe is explained by Tassos (CCIE #19858) in the attached link below. I've copied his complete description and added the Cisco bug which relates to the problem you have.



        Please notice, that the issue has been fixed on the newer enhanced ME 3400-E.




        Everyone using ME-3400 switches might have noticed the following error
        message when trying to configure an output policy-map under an
        interface:




        QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 4000000 bps is not 
        achievable in hw within 1% of configuration.
        Closest value(s) are: 11111120 bps, 5882368 bps



        Cisco documentation is cryptic (as always) about the details of this,
        but it has to do with some hardware limitation of this specific
        platform. In particular the granularity of the hardware for the
        shaping action is somehow based on pre-configured values.



        The ME-3400 (as most lower end switches) has physical memory buffers,
        which can be used by IOS only in bunches of specific (pre-configured)
        sizes. In routers and high end switches, QoS is usually implemented in
        software through the use of memory pools, which allows the IOS to use
        parts of buffers with variable sizes.



        Egress shaping on ME-3400 comes into two categories : Port shaping and
        Class-based shaping. Port shaping applies to all traffic passing
        through an interface, while class-based shaping applies to specific
        classes of traffic leaving an interface. Each one of them is using a
        different formula in order to give you all the supported values.



        Port shaping values are based on the following formula:




        (1 - 16/N) * IfSpeed



        Where:



        N is a value between 17 and 64000 IfSpeed is the interface speed : 10
        Mbps, 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps The result in then rounded up to a multiple of
        16. An equivalent excel formula would be : CEILING((1-16/N)*IfSpeed;16)



        Class-based shaping values are based on the following much simpler
        formula:




        1/N * IfSpeed



        Where: N is a value between 1 and 15625 IfSpeed is the interface speed
        : 10 Mbps, 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps



        You can see some possible values in the table below:



        According to the above table, in the port shaper the low end
        granularity is very coarse and the high end granularity is very dense,
        while the opposite happens in the class-based shaper. So there is no
        possibility you can have a <58 Mbps port shaper for 1 Gbps interfaces,
        as there is no possibility to have <5,8 Mbps port shaper for 100 Mbps
        interfaces. Similarly you can't have a 700 Mbps class-based shaper on
        a 1000 Mbps interface, nor a 80 Mbps class-based shaper on a 100 Mbps
        interface.



        Let's take for example the following policy-map configuration which is
        applied on a 1 Gbps interface.




         policy-map CHILD class TEST-CLASS
        shape average 100000 policy-map PARENT class class-default
        shape average 930000000 service-policy CHILD



        If you try to change the shaper of the child class to a value >500
        Mbps, you'll get a warning like the following:




         3400(config-pmap-c)#shape average 700000000 QoS: Configuration failed.
        The configured rate 700000000 bps is not achievable in hw within 1% of
        configuration.
        Closest value(s) are: 930000000 bps, 500000000 bps



        If you check the formula for the class-based shaper (or have a quick
        look at the table), 930000000 is not actually a valid value to
        configure, but it gets printed because this is the limit imposed by
        the parent class. You just have to ignore it.



        If you need specific values you might want to try changing the speed
        of the interface : choosing between 10/100/1000 should be easy for
        BaseTX interfaces, while 100/1000 Mbps SFPs exist for the SFP-based
        ones.



        Also, it's strongly recommended that you disable port speed
        autonegotiation when you attach an output policy map to a 10/100/1000
        port, to prevent the port from autonegotiating to a rate that would
        make the output policy map invalid.



        Keep in mind that ME-3400E (the new enhanced version of ME-3400)
        implements a improved version of Egress Shaping Granularity, which
        uses a simpler linear formula. It's 64 Kbps for the class-based shaper
        and 100/500/1000 Kbps for the 10/100/1000 Mbps port-based shaper (100
        Kbps for 10 Mbps ports, 500 Kbps for 100 Mbps ports, 1000 Kbps for
        1000 Mbps ports).




        Cisco bug report for those who do not have access to Cisco:



        ME3400 - inconsistent rate for hw shaper when queue-limit is changed
        CSCsz52950




        Description



        Symptom:



        If the queue-limit is configured on a policy-map with a shaper
        attached the suggested configurabale rate gets changed.




        policy-map test-shaper
        class class-default
        shape average 35000000

        lan-me3400-1(config-pmap-c)#int g0/11
        lan-me3400-1(config-if)#service-policy output test-shaper
        QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 35000000 bps is not achievable in hw within 1% of configuration.
        Closest value(s) are: 36000000 bps, 33333344 bps



        Error using the default 160 packet queue [EXPECTED MESSAGE DUE TO
        GRANULARITY - THIS IS NOT THE BUG]



        ========================================



        Queue limit is changed to any value (therefore not to default any
        more)




        policy-map test-shaper
        class class-default
        shape average 35000000
        queue-limit 200

        lan-me3400-1(config-pmap-c)#int g0/11
        lan-me3400-1(config-if)#
        lan-me3400-1(config-if)#service-policy output test-shaper
        QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 35000000 bps is not achievable in hw within 1% of configuration.
        Closest value(s) are: 33333333 bps, 25000000 bps



        Conditions:



        Queue-limit is expressely defined.



        Workaround:



        Use the suggested value.



        Further Problem Description:



        The message is cosmetic as at hardware level there is no change when
        the queue-limit is configured.




        Tassos source: https://ccie-in-3-months.blogspot.com/2010/01/shaper-granularity-on-me-3400.html



        Cisco bug search (requires CCO login): https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCsz52950






        share|improve this answer













        The problem you describe is explained by Tassos (CCIE #19858) in the attached link below. I've copied his complete description and added the Cisco bug which relates to the problem you have.



        Please notice, that the issue has been fixed on the newer enhanced ME 3400-E.




        Everyone using ME-3400 switches might have noticed the following error
        message when trying to configure an output policy-map under an
        interface:




        QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 4000000 bps is not 
        achievable in hw within 1% of configuration.
        Closest value(s) are: 11111120 bps, 5882368 bps



        Cisco documentation is cryptic (as always) about the details of this,
        but it has to do with some hardware limitation of this specific
        platform. In particular the granularity of the hardware for the
        shaping action is somehow based on pre-configured values.



        The ME-3400 (as most lower end switches) has physical memory buffers,
        which can be used by IOS only in bunches of specific (pre-configured)
        sizes. In routers and high end switches, QoS is usually implemented in
        software through the use of memory pools, which allows the IOS to use
        parts of buffers with variable sizes.



        Egress shaping on ME-3400 comes into two categories : Port shaping and
        Class-based shaping. Port shaping applies to all traffic passing
        through an interface, while class-based shaping applies to specific
        classes of traffic leaving an interface. Each one of them is using a
        different formula in order to give you all the supported values.



        Port shaping values are based on the following formula:




        (1 - 16/N) * IfSpeed



        Where:



        N is a value between 17 and 64000 IfSpeed is the interface speed : 10
        Mbps, 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps The result in then rounded up to a multiple of
        16. An equivalent excel formula would be : CEILING((1-16/N)*IfSpeed;16)



        Class-based shaping values are based on the following much simpler
        formula:




        1/N * IfSpeed



        Where: N is a value between 1 and 15625 IfSpeed is the interface speed
        : 10 Mbps, 100 Mbps, 1 Gbps



        You can see some possible values in the table below:



        According to the above table, in the port shaper the low end
        granularity is very coarse and the high end granularity is very dense,
        while the opposite happens in the class-based shaper. So there is no
        possibility you can have a <58 Mbps port shaper for 1 Gbps interfaces,
        as there is no possibility to have <5,8 Mbps port shaper for 100 Mbps
        interfaces. Similarly you can't have a 700 Mbps class-based shaper on
        a 1000 Mbps interface, nor a 80 Mbps class-based shaper on a 100 Mbps
        interface.



        Let's take for example the following policy-map configuration which is
        applied on a 1 Gbps interface.




         policy-map CHILD class TEST-CLASS
        shape average 100000 policy-map PARENT class class-default
        shape average 930000000 service-policy CHILD



        If you try to change the shaper of the child class to a value >500
        Mbps, you'll get a warning like the following:




         3400(config-pmap-c)#shape average 700000000 QoS: Configuration failed.
        The configured rate 700000000 bps is not achievable in hw within 1% of
        configuration.
        Closest value(s) are: 930000000 bps, 500000000 bps



        If you check the formula for the class-based shaper (or have a quick
        look at the table), 930000000 is not actually a valid value to
        configure, but it gets printed because this is the limit imposed by
        the parent class. You just have to ignore it.



        If you need specific values you might want to try changing the speed
        of the interface : choosing between 10/100/1000 should be easy for
        BaseTX interfaces, while 100/1000 Mbps SFPs exist for the SFP-based
        ones.



        Also, it's strongly recommended that you disable port speed
        autonegotiation when you attach an output policy map to a 10/100/1000
        port, to prevent the port from autonegotiating to a rate that would
        make the output policy map invalid.



        Keep in mind that ME-3400E (the new enhanced version of ME-3400)
        implements a improved version of Egress Shaping Granularity, which
        uses a simpler linear formula. It's 64 Kbps for the class-based shaper
        and 100/500/1000 Kbps for the 10/100/1000 Mbps port-based shaper (100
        Kbps for 10 Mbps ports, 500 Kbps for 100 Mbps ports, 1000 Kbps for
        1000 Mbps ports).




        Cisco bug report for those who do not have access to Cisco:



        ME3400 - inconsistent rate for hw shaper when queue-limit is changed
        CSCsz52950




        Description



        Symptom:



        If the queue-limit is configured on a policy-map with a shaper
        attached the suggested configurabale rate gets changed.




        policy-map test-shaper
        class class-default
        shape average 35000000

        lan-me3400-1(config-pmap-c)#int g0/11
        lan-me3400-1(config-if)#service-policy output test-shaper
        QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 35000000 bps is not achievable in hw within 1% of configuration.
        Closest value(s) are: 36000000 bps, 33333344 bps



        Error using the default 160 packet queue [EXPECTED MESSAGE DUE TO
        GRANULARITY - THIS IS NOT THE BUG]



        ========================================



        Queue limit is changed to any value (therefore not to default any
        more)




        policy-map test-shaper
        class class-default
        shape average 35000000
        queue-limit 200

        lan-me3400-1(config-pmap-c)#int g0/11
        lan-me3400-1(config-if)#
        lan-me3400-1(config-if)#service-policy output test-shaper
        QoS: Configuration failed. The configured rate 35000000 bps is not achievable in hw within 1% of configuration.
        Closest value(s) are: 33333333 bps, 25000000 bps



        Conditions:



        Queue-limit is expressely defined.



        Workaround:



        Use the suggested value.



        Further Problem Description:



        The message is cosmetic as at hardware level there is no change when
        the queue-limit is configured.




        Tassos source: https://ccie-in-3-months.blogspot.com/2010/01/shaper-granularity-on-me-3400.html



        Cisco bug search (requires CCO login): https://bst.cloudapps.cisco.com/bugsearch/bug/CSCsz52950







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 14 hours ago









        CownCown

        6,61931031




        6,61931031



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Network Engineering Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fnetworkengineering.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57723%2fbandwidth-limit-cisco-3400-me-problem%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            getting Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender working in the command lineHow to connect to CheckPoint VPN on Ubuntu 18.04LTS?Will the Linux ( red-hat ) Open VPNC Client connect to checkpoint or nortel VPN gateways?VPN client for linux machine + support checkpoint gatewayVPN SSL Network Extender in FirefoxLinux Checkpoint SNX tool configuration issuesCheck Point - Connect under Linux - snx + OTPSNX VPN Ububuntu 18.XXUsing Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender CLI with certificateVPN with network manager (nm-applet) is not workingWill the Linux ( red-hat ) Open VPNC Client connect to checkpoint or nortel VPN gateways?VPN client for linux machine + support checkpoint gatewayImport VPN config files to NetworkManager from command lineTrouble connecting to VPN using network-manager, while command line worksStart a VPN connection with PPTP protocol on command linestarting a docker service daemon breaks the vpn networkCan't connect to vpn with Network-managerVPN SSL Network Extender in FirefoxUsing Checkpoint VPN SSL Network Extender CLI with certificate

            대한민국 목차 국명 지리 역사 정치 국방 경제 사회 문화 국제 순위 관련 항목 각주 외부 링크 둘러보기 메뉴북위 37° 34′ 08″ 동경 126° 58′ 36″ / 북위 37.568889° 동경 126.976667°  / 37.568889; 126.976667ehThe Korean Repository문단을 편집문단을 편집추가해Clarkson PLC 사Report for Selected Countries and Subjects-Korea“Human Development Index and its components: P.198”“http://www.law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%EB%8C%80%ED%95%9C%EB%AF%BC%EA%B5%AD%EA%B5%AD%EA%B8%B0%EB%B2%95”"한국은 국제법상 한반도 유일 합법정부 아니다" - 오마이뉴스 모바일Report for Selected Countries and Subjects: South Korea격동의 역사와 함께한 조선일보 90년 : 조선일보 인수해 혁신시킨 신석우, 임시정부 때는 '대한민국' 국호(國號) 정해《우리가 몰랐던 우리 역사: 나라 이름의 비밀을 찾아가는 역사 여행》“남북 공식호칭 ‘남한’‘북한’으로 쓴다”“Corea 대 Korea, 누가 이긴 거야?”국내기후자료 - 한국[김대중 前 대통령 서거] 과감한 구조개혁 'DJ노믹스'로 최단기간 환란극복 :: 네이버 뉴스“이라크 "韓-쿠르드 유전개발 MOU 승인 안해"(종합)”“해외 우리국민 추방사례 43%가 일본”차기전차 K2'흑표'의 세계 최고 전력 분석, 쿠키뉴스 엄기영, 2007-03-02두산인프라, 헬기잡는 장갑차 'K21'...내년부터 공급, 고뉴스 이대준, 2008-10-30과거 내용 찾기mk 뉴스 - 구매력 기준으로 보면 한국 1인당 소득 3만弗과거 내용 찾기"The N-11: More Than an Acronym"Archived조선일보 최우석, 2008-11-01Global 500 2008: Countries - South Korea“몇년째 '시한폭탄'... 가계부채, 올해는 터질까”가구당 부채 5000만원 처음 넘어서“‘빚’으로 내몰리는 사회.. 위기의 가계대출”“[경제365] 공공부문 부채 급증…800조 육박”“"소득 양극화 다소 완화...불평등은 여전"”“공정사회·공생발전 한참 멀었네”iSuppli,08年2QのDRAMシェア・ランキングを発表(08/8/11)South Korea dominates shipbuilding industry | Stock Market News & Stocks to Watch from StraightStocks한국 자동차 생산, 3년 연속 세계 5위자동차수출 '현대-삼성 웃고 기아-대우-쌍용은 울고' 과거 내용 찾기동반성장위 창립 1주년 맞아Archived"중기적합 3개업종 합의 무시한 채 선정"李대통령, 사업 무분별 확장 소상공인 생계 위협 질타삼성-LG, 서민업종인 빵·분식사업 잇따라 철수상생은 뒷전…SSM ‘몸집 불리기’ 혈안Archived“경부고속도에 '아시안하이웨이' 표지판”'철의 실크로드' 앞서 '말(言)의 실크로드'부터, 프레시안 정창현, 2008-10-01“'서울 지하철은 안전한가?'”“서울시 “올해 안에 모든 지하철역 스크린도어 설치””“부산지하철 1,2호선 승강장 안전펜스 설치 완료”“전교조, 정부 노조 통계서 처음 빠져”“[Weekly BIZ] 도요타 '제로 이사회'가 리콜 사태 불러들였다”“S Korea slams high tuition costs”““정치가 여론 양극화 부채질… 합리주의 절실””“〈"`촛불집회'는 민주주의의 질적 변화 상징"〉”““촛불집회가 민주주의 왜곡 초래””“국민 65%, "한국 노사관계 대립적"”“한국 국가경쟁력 27위‥노사관계 '꼴찌'”“제대로 형성되지 않은 대한민국 이념지형”“[신년기획-갈등의 시대] 갈등지수 OECD 4위…사회적 손실 GDP 27% 무려 300조”“2012 총선-대선의 키워드는 '국민과 소통'”“한국 삶의 질 27위, 2000년과 2008년 연속 하위권 머물러”“[해피 코리아] 행복점수 68점…해외 평가선 '낙제점'”“한국 어린이·청소년 행복지수 3년 연속 OECD ‘꼴찌’”“한국 이혼율 OECD중 8위”“[통계청] 한국 이혼율 OECD 4위”“오피니언 [이렇게 생각한다] `부부의 날` 에 돌아본 이혼율 1위 한국”“Suicide Rates by Country, Global Health Observatory Data Repository.”“1. 또 다른 차별”“오피니언 [편집자에게] '왕따'와 '패거리 정치' 심리는 닮은꼴”“[미래한국리포트] 무한경쟁에 빠진 대한민국”“대학생 98% "외모가 경쟁력이라는 말 동의"”“특급호텔 웨딩·200만원대 유모차… "남보다 더…" 호화病, 고질병 됐다”“[스트레스 공화국] ① 경쟁사회, 스트레스 쌓인다”““매일 30여명 자살 한국, 의사보다 무속인에…””“"자살 부르는 '우울증', 환자 중 85% 치료 안 받아"”“정신병원을 가다”“대한민국도 ‘묻지마 범죄’,안전지대 아니다”“유엔 "학생 '성적 지향'에 따른 차별 금지하라"”“유엔아동권리위원회 보고서 및 번역본 원문”“고졸 성공스토리 담은 '제빵왕 김탁구' 드라마 나온다”“‘빛 좋은 개살구’ 고졸 취업…실습 대신 착취”원본 문서“정신건강, 사회적 편견부터 고쳐드립니다”‘소통’과 ‘행복’에 목 마른 사회가 잠들어 있던 ‘심리학’ 깨웠다“[포토] 사유리-곽금주 교수의 유쾌한 심리상담”“"올해 한국인 평균 영화관람횟수 세계 1위"(종합)”“[게임연중기획] 게임은 문화다-여가활동 1순위 게임”“영화속 ‘영어 지상주의’ …“왠지 씁쓸한데””“2월 `신문 부수 인증기관` 지정..방송법 후속작업”“무료신문 성장동력 ‘차별성’과 ‘갈등해소’”대한민국 국회 법률지식정보시스템"Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project: South Korea"“amp;vwcd=MT_ZTITLE&path=인구·가구%20>%20인구총조사%20>%20인구부문%20>%20 총조사인구(2005)%20>%20전수부문&oper_YN=Y&item=&keyword=종교별%20인구& amp;lang_mode=kor&list_id= 2005년 통계청 인구 총조사”원본 문서“한국인이 좋아하는 취미와 운동 (2004-2009)”“한국인이 좋아하는 취미와 운동 (2004-2014)”Archived“한국, `부분적 언론자유국' 강등〈프리덤하우스〉”“국경없는기자회 "한국, 인터넷감시 대상국"”“한국, 조선산업 1위 유지(S. Korea Stays Top Shipbuilding Nation) RZD-Partner Portal”원본 문서“한국, 4년 만에 ‘선박건조 1위’”“옛 마산시,인터넷속도 세계 1위”“"한국 초고속 인터넷망 세계1위"”“인터넷·휴대폰 요금, 외국보다 훨씬 비싸”“한국 관세행정 6년 연속 세계 '1위'”“한국 교통사고 사망자 수 OECD 회원국 중 2위”“결핵 후진국' 한국, 환자가 급증한 이유는”“수술은 신중해야… 자칫하면 생명 위협”대한민국분류대한민국의 지도대한민국 정부대표 다국어포털대한민국 전자정부대한민국 국회한국방송공사about korea and information korea브리태니커 백과사전(한국편)론리플래닛의 정보(한국편)CIA의 세계 정보(한국편)마리암 부디아 (Mariam Budia),『한국: 하늘이 내린 한 폭의 그림』, 서울: 트랜스라틴 19호 (2012년 3월)대한민국ehehehehehehehehehehehehehehWorldCat132441370n791268020000 0001 2308 81034078029-6026373548cb11863345f(데이터)00573706ge128495

            Cannot Extend partition with GParted The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) 2019 Community Moderator Election ResultsCan't increase partition size with GParted?GParted doesn't recognize the unallocated space after my current partitionWhat is the best way to add unallocated space located before to Ubuntu 12.04 partition with GParted live?I can't figure out how to extend my Arch home partition into free spaceGparted Linux Mint 18.1 issueTrying to extend but swap partition is showing as Unknown in Gparted, shows proper from fdiskRearrange partitions in gparted to extend a partitionUnable to extend partition even though unallocated space is next to it using GPartedAllocate free space to root partitiongparted: how to merge unallocated space with a partition