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

How to make money from a browser who sees 5 seconds into the future of any web page?

15% tax on $7.5k earnings. Is that right?

Which was the first story featuring espers?

How do I fix the group tension caused by my character stealing and possibly killing without provocation?

How to draw a matrix with arrows in limited space

When were female captains banned from Starfleet?

Is there a RAID 0 Equivalent for RAM?

Making grids in QGIS

Why does AES have exactly 10 rounds for a 128-bit key, 12 for 192 bits and 14 for a 256-bit key size?

Has the laser at Magurele, Romania reached a tenth of the Sun's power?

Why Shazam when there is already Superman?

Are Captain Marvel's powers affected by Thanos breaking the Tesseract and claiming the stone?

What kind of floor tile is this?

I found an audio circuit and I built it just fine, but I find it a bit too quiet. How do I amplify the output so that it is a bit louder?

Is it allowed to activate the ability of multiple planeswalkers in a single turn?

How to convince somebody that he is fit for something else, but not this job?

A Trivial Diagnosis

Stack Interview Code methods made from class Node and Smart Pointers

What features enable the Su-25 Frogfoot to operate with such a wide variety of fuels?

How do you make your own symbol when Detexify fails?

Make a Bowl of Alphabet Soup

Doesn't the system of the Supreme Court oppose justice?

How to preserve electronics (computers, iPads and phones) for hundreds of years

Microchip documentation does not label CAN buss pins on micro controller pinout diagram



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
    Mar 18 at 11:20






  • 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
    Mar 18 at 11:21











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

    – it dev
    Mar 18 at 12:04











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

    – it dev
    Mar 18 at 12:06











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

    – Cown
    Mar 18 at 12:08















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
    Mar 18 at 11:20






  • 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
    Mar 18 at 11:21











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

    – it dev
    Mar 18 at 12:04











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

    – it dev
    Mar 18 at 12:06











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

    – Cown
    Mar 18 at 12:08













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 Mar 18 at 11:52









Cown

6,63331031




6,63331031










asked Mar 18 at 11:09









it devit dev

344




344












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

    – Cown
    Mar 18 at 11:20






  • 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
    Mar 18 at 11:21











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

    – it dev
    Mar 18 at 12:04











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

    – it dev
    Mar 18 at 12:06











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

    – Cown
    Mar 18 at 12:08

















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

    – Cown
    Mar 18 at 11:20






  • 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
    Mar 18 at 11:21











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

    – it dev
    Mar 18 at 12:04











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

    – it dev
    Mar 18 at 12:06











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

    – Cown
    Mar 18 at 12:08
















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

– Cown
Mar 18 at 11:20





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

– Cown
Mar 18 at 11:20




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
Mar 18 at 11:21





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
Mar 18 at 11:21













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

– it dev
Mar 18 at 12:04





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

– it dev
Mar 18 at 12:04













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

– it dev
Mar 18 at 12:06





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

– it dev
Mar 18 at 12:06













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

– Cown
Mar 18 at 12:08





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

– Cown
Mar 18 at 12:08










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 Mar 18 at 11:42









        CownCown

        6,63331031




        6,63331031



























            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

            Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

            He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

            Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029