From: MMoniz (ccie2002@tampabay.rr.com)
Date: Sat May 29 2004 - 18:04:13 GMT-3
All I can really suggest is to read this part of the 3550 config guide
thoroughly
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/switches/ps646/products_configuration
_guide_chapter09186a0080211cd4.html
It will explain it pretty well!! Kind of hard to comprehend the first or
second time reading it though.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Tomasz Szymanski
Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 4:52 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Cos and 802.1p difference/Voice Vlan
This answer is not really clear to me.
I would like to know if CoS is only in dot1p bits or if untagged
(without dot1p/dot1q hader) packets can have CoS assigned??????
Dan Shechter Gelles wrote:
>dot1p is a field in dot1q.
>no dot1p no CoS
>
>
>
>On Sat, 29 May 2004, Tomasz Szymanski wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I have the question about the difference in Ethernet frames (taged and
>>untagged).
>>
>>Where is the difference in CoS in untagged frame and dot1p priority in
>>tagged frame.
>>The question is about voice vlan and it's behaviour.
>>
>>I would like to know if the frames from the computer connected to the
>>IPPhone are tagged or not by the IP phone and how they are tagged.
>>
>>I would like to know what happens to the frames if I don't have trust on
>>the port and default CoS is set to 1. What happens to tagged and
>>untegged frame in this case?
>>
>>TS
>>
>>_______________________________________________________________________
>>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
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________________________________
>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 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 11:12:19 GMT-3