RE: Quick question on Voip over Frame.

From: Packet Man (ccie2b@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Feb 08 2004 - 18:26:46 GMT-3


Answers in-line:

>From: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@revolutioncomputer.com>
>Reply-To: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@revolutioncomputer.com>
>To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: Quick question on Voip over Frame.
>Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 15:11:50 -0600
>
>Using the requirements for Voip
>
>Port Speed 64000
>CIR 32000
>Tc 10 ms
>
>
>map-class frame-relay voip
> frame-relay cir 32000
> frame-relay bc 320
> frame-relay be 0
> frame-relay mincir 32000
> no frame-relay adaptive-shaping
> frame-relay fragment 320
>
>
> fragment type end-to-end fragment size 320
> cir 32000 bc 320 be 0 limit 40 interval 10
> mincir 32000 byte increment 40 BECN response no
> frags 22 bytes 1561 frags delayed 17 bytes delayed
>1201
>
>
>1) Will the fragment size always equal Bc?

Yes, however, that doesn't mean there won't be pkts that are smaller than
320 which, of course, won't need to be fragmented. I don't know what
happens to large pkts that get fragmented into say 5 fragments but dont have
enough bits to completely fill the last fragment. I suppose the router
could pad the last fragment but I doubt it would.
>
>2) Should I use the `frame-relay ip rtp priority 16384 16383 32` with my
>class or add my own priority queue to the physical interface?

I think either will work. the important thing is that voice gets queued
into a strict priority queue.
>
>There's no firm requirements, just trying to figure out a good way of
>doing it.
>
>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/tech/tk652/tk698/technologies_tech_note09186a
>00800d6788.shtml
>
>
>Michael Snyder
>Lead Network Engineer
>CCNP/DP, CSS1, MCSE NT/2000
>Revolution Computer Systems
>(270) 443-7400
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>Please help support GroupStudy by purchasing your study materials from:
>http://shop.groupstudy.com
>
>Subscription information may be found at:
>http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Mar 05 2004 - 07:13:47 GMT-3