From: Teck PhrEAk!! (phreakinphunk@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 02 2003 - 12:33:41 GMT-3
hi daniel,
yr configs shud look like this.....and u havent missed the boat!
>mls qos
>!
>interface fastethernet 0/10
>switchport access vlan 10
>switchport voice vlan 100
>mls qos trust cos
the only change is that there is no "switchport mode access" as this command
would force the port into access mode and it wudnt form a 802.1q trunk with
the IP Phone.This config requires the port to be in the default mode i.e
"Dynamic,Desirable" so the IP Phone can form the trunk as and when
required.........and the CoS value wud then be carried thru.
This is how i understand it.......ppl correct me if i am wrong....
cheers,
sumit.
ccie#11125
ccdp,ccnp,rhce,scsa,mcse,ibm e-biz
TRANCE DJ......
>From: "Daniel Cisco Group Study" <danielcgs@imc.net.au>
>Reply-To: "Daniel Cisco Group Study" <danielcgs@imc.net.au>
>To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: 3550 Voice Vlans
>Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 22:11:53 +1000
>
>I've researched this one heavily, but there is still something that is not
>clicking in my brain.....
>
>There's lots of documentation about voice vlans, and about trusting or not
>trusting the COS values of packets from the PC attached to the IP Phone.
>All sounds very nice and useful.
>
>However, unless a user somehow trunks to the phone, he can't set COS values
>anyway as these are carried in the 802.1p portion of the 802.1q header. Why
>are we worried about trusting or not trusting the COS values from the PC???
>
>I'm referring to configurations like the following: (not the traditional
>trunking method):
>
>mls qos
>!
>interface fastethernet 0/10
>switchport mode access
>switchport access vlan 10
>switchport voice vlan 100
>mls qos trust cos
>
>
>In addition, what is the difference between the following:
>
>(a) switchport voice vlan 100
>(b) switchport voice vlan dot1p
>
>Refer to doco:
>
>http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/lan/c3550/12112cea/3550scg/swvoip.htm#51534
>
>The Docos are very unclear..... and again, dot1p is carried within dot1q,
>or I've missed the boat.
>
>Daniel
>
>
>
>**********************************************************************
>This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
>are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
>the system manager.
>This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
>MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
>www.mimesweeper.com
>**********************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu May 01 2003 - 13:35:45 GMT-3