Cisco Unified Contact Center Enterprise Solution Reference ...

Chapter 11 Bandwidth Provisioning and QoS Considerations
Quality of Service
Where to Mark Traffic
OL-8669-05
Cisco Unified Contact Center Enterprise 7.x SRND
Quality of Service
is a rule of thumb, but the actual behavior should be monitored once the system is operational to ensure
that enough bandwidth exists. (Unified ICM meters data transmission statistics at both the Central
Controller and PG sides of each path.)
Again, the rule of thumb and example described here apply to Unified ICM prior to Release 5.0, and they
are stated here for reference purpose only. Bandwidth calculators and sizing formulas are supplied for
Unified ICM 5.0 and later releases, and they can project bandwidth requirements far more accurately.
See Bandwidth Requirements for Unified CCE Public and Private Networks, page 11-14, for more
details.
As with bandwidth, specific latency requirements must be guaranteed in order for the Unified ICM to
function as designed. The side-to-side private network of duplexed Central Controller and PG nodes has
a maximum one-way latency of 100 ms (50 ms preferred). The PG-to-CC path has a maximum one-way
latency of 200 ms in order to perform as designed. Meeting or exceeding these latency requirements is
particularly important in an environment using Unified ICM post-routing and/or translation routes.
As discussed previously, Unified ICM bandwidth and latency design is fully dependant upon an
underlying IP prioritization scheme. Without proper prioritization in place, WAN connections will fail.
The Cisco Unified ICM support team has custom tools (for example, Client/Server) that can be used to
demonstrate proper prioritization and to perform some level of bandwidth utilization modeling for
deployment certification.
Depending upon the final network design, an IP queuing strategy will be required in a shared network
environment to achieve Unified ICM traffic prioritization concurrent with other non-DNP traffic flows.
This queuing strategy is fully dependent upon traffic profiles and bandwidth availability, and success in
a shared network cannot be guaranteed unless the stringent bandwidth, latency, and prioritization
requirements of the product are met.
This section covers the planning and configuration issues to consider when moving to a Unified ICM
QoS solution.
In planning QoS, a question often arises about whether to mark traffic in Unified ICM or at the network
edge. Each option has it pros and cons. Marking traffic in Unified ICM saves the access lists for
classifying traffic in IP routers and switches. Additionally, when deployed with Microsoft Windows
Packet Scheduler, Unified ICM supports traffic shaping and 802.1p marking. The traffic shaping
functionality mitigates the bursty nature of Unified ICM transmissions by smoothing transmission peaks
over a given time period, thereby smoothing network usage. The 802.1p capability, a LAN QoS handling
mechanism, allows high-priority packets to enter the network ahead of low-priority packets in a
congested Layer-2 network segment.
There are several disadvantages to marking traffic in Unified ICM. First, it is hard to make changes. For
instance, if you want to change the marking values for the public network traffic, you have to make
changes on all the PGs. For a system with more than 30 PGs, for example, all those changes would
require quite a lot of work. Second, QoS trust has to be enabled on access-layer routers and switches,
which could open the network to malicious packets with inflated marking levels.
In contrast, marking traffic at the network edge allows for centralized and secured marking policy
management, and there is no need to enable trust on access-layer devices. A little overhead is needed to
define access lists to recognize Unified ICM packets. For access-list definition criteria on edge routers
or switches, see Table 11-1, Table 11-2, and Table 11-3. Do not use port numbers in the access lists for
11-9