Re: Quick question on Voip over Frame.

From: Bob Sinclair (bsin@cox.net)
Date: Sun Feb 08 2004 - 18:51:32 GMT-3


Michael,

Since the frame-relay committed burst, Bc, is in bits and the fragment size
is in bytes, I don't think it would be correct to say that the fragment size
would equal the Bc.

The Bc should be the number of bytes that can be sent per Tc at the link
speed. For a 64000 bps link and a Tc of 10 milliseconds, that would be a
fragment size of 80 bytes.

64000/8 X .01 = 80 bytes

HTH,

Bob Sinclair
CCIE #10427, CISSP, MCSE
www.netmasterclass.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@revolutioncomputer.com>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 4:11 PM
Subject: Quick question on Voip over Frame.

> 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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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