From: mmamatov (mmamatov@yandex.ru)
Date: Tue Jul 22 2003 - 08:52:34 GMT-3
Also, ip rtp priority feature gives strict priority only to even udp port numbers.
Best regards,
Mike
>Hi Glenn,
>
>Both config seems have no difference for voice/udp packets.
>But, second config does not allocate bandwidth for IP.
>
>That's what I think.
>
>Rivalino
>
>On Sat, 19 Jul 2003, Glenn Johnson wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Functionally speaking, when trying to prioritize voice/udp on a given
>> interface, is there a difference
>> between config 1 and config 2 below?
>> Thanks
>>
>> Config 1
>> -----------
>> Access-list 101 permit udp any any range 16384 16383
>> Access-list 102 permit ip any any
>> Class-map VOX
>> Match access-group 101
>> Class-map DEBRIS
>> Match access-group 101
>> Policy-map VOX_POL
>> Class VOX
>> Priority 64
>> Class DEBRIS
>> Bandwidth Percent 50
>> Interface FA0/0
>> Service-policy output VOX_POL
>>
>> Config 2
>> ------------
>> Interface FA0/0
>> IP RTP Priority 16384 16383 64
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> You are subscribed to the GroupStudy.com CCIE R&S Discussion Group.
>>
>> Subscription information may be found at:
>> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>You are subscribed to the GroupStudy.com CCIE R&S Discussion Group.
>
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
-- ~ISTAQ PO^TA - \TO LI^NYE PISXMA, BEZ SPAMA I WIRUSOW - http://mail.yandex.ru/monitoring. zAWEDITE I WY SEBE PO^TU NA qNDEKSE.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 06 2003 - 06:52:48 GMT-3