From: Deepesh Chouhan (deepesh@cisco.com)
Date: Tue Oct 29 2002 - 20:39:36 GMT-3
Hi
What does the question say
1.
PQ for all voice traffic = 40 K
AND
Each voice session = 20 K
OR it means
2.
PQ for all voice traffic = 40 K
AND
Each voice session <= 20 K
Can you verify that ?
Your solution won't work here
Reason is that bandwidth specified in ip rtp priority cmd is meant for all
calls.
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/software/ios120/120newft/120
t/120t7/friprtp.htm
(look for maximum total bandwidth string)
Also frame-relay voice bandwidth command is useless, when used with ip rtp
priority as ip rtp command, takes precedence over any other configuration
Let me know the specifics of questions ...
On a side note, if this is in exam, can we ask proctor to clarify this ? Are
they aware of all questions ?
thanks
Deepesh
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Ayman Hamza
> Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 2:01 PM
> To: deepesh@cisco.com
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: CCIE LAB VOICE question, How to reserve bandwidht for voice
> sessions!!
>
>
> Hi Deepesh;
>
> Thanks for your reply. But I don't see how you are allocating (reserve)
> 20kb/s for each session!! CBWFQ/LLQ won't help in this, right? PLS advise!
>
> Ayman
>
> > From nobody@groupstudy.com Tue Oct 29 03:14:10 2002
> > From: "Deepesh Chouhan" <deepesh@cisco.com>
> > To: "Ayman Hamza" <ayhamza@cisco.com>, <ccielab@groupstudy.com>,
> > <ayman_hamza@hotmail.com>
> > Subject: RE: CCIE LAB VOICE question, How to reserve bandwidht for voice
> > sessions!!
> > Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 17:49:05 -0800
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
> > X-ASK-Info: Confirmed by user
> > Sender: nobody@groupstudy.com
> > Reply-To: "Deepesh Chouhan" <deepesh@cisco.com>
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > Cisco has fixed the problem. You should be getting emails on your cisco
> > account now.
> >
> > Regd. your question -
> >
> > Why not use shaping ?
> > If I remember correctly from DQOS (deploying QOS on enterprise
> n/w) class,
> >
> > - ingress side set ip prec 5 for all voice traffic
> > (on dial peer voip - set ip prec 5)
> > - egress side define
> > class-map c1
> > match ip prec 5
> > policy-map p1
> > class c1
> > shape 40
> >
> > Shaping will take place even when there is no congestion
> >
> > thanks
> > deepesh
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> > > Ayman Hamza
> > > Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 5:16 PM
> > > To: ccielab@groupstudy.com; ayman_hamza@hotmail.com
> > > Cc: ayhamza@cisco.com
> > > Subject: CCIE LAB VOICE question, How to reserve bandwidht for voice
> > > sessions!!
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Team;
> > >
> > > *** PLS reply to me via my hotmail address: ayman_hamza@hotmail.com ,
> > > as our cisco mail server has a problem for receiving mails from
> > > ccielab@groupstudy.com ****
> > >
> > >
> > > You have hub router - terminating two DLCIs under its
> subinterface -. One
> > > of these DLCIs are connected to another router that have Tel sets
> > > connected
> > > to it - the other spoke doesn't have any tel. sets - . So one
> > > DLCI will carry the voice traffic.
> > >
> > > The wording of the question is :
> > >
> > > All the voice traffic through frame relay interface of R6 - R6 is
> > > the hub router - should guarantee a bandwidth of 40kb/s . Each
> > > voice session
> > > should have 20kb/s .
> > >
> > > Hint: the command " ip rsvp .." is not enabled - or configurable -
> > > with teh IOS image used .
> > >
> > > My asnwer, and PLS correct me if I'm wrong :
> > >
> > > !
> > > interface serial 0/0
> > > frame-relay traffic-shapping
> > > !
> > > interface Serial0/0.1 multipoint
> > > frame-relay interface-dlci 406
> > > class ccie
> > > !
> > > map-class frame-relay ccie
> > > frame-relay voice bandwidth 40
> > > frame relay ip rtp priority 16384 16383 20
> > > !
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't think LLQ is a solution as LLQ takes affect only when there is
> > > a congestion. Ofcourse CBWFQ is not a solution because it's not
> > > giving any prioritization for any specific traffic like LLQ
> which places
> > > a specific traffic in Priority queue.
> > >
> > > PLS advice!
> > >
> > > Regards;
> > > Ayman
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Nov 05 2002 - 08:35:59 GMT-3