From: Carlos G Mendioroz (tron@huapi.ba.ar)
Date: Fri Aug 13 2004 - 07:11:37 GMT-3
Yep,
the restriction is only for Voip phones. No phones in the WAN for CME
for the time being (supported at least :-)
Richard Dumoulin wrote:
> There's no RTCP between the ephones and CME but there is between the
> Voice gateways I think, no ?
>
> --Richard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Carlos G Mendioroz [mailto:tron@huapi.ba.ar]
> Sent: viernes, 13 de agosto de 2004 11:35
> To: Scott Morris
> Cc: 'Steven A Ridder'; 'John Matus'; 'lab'
> Subject: Re: qos for voice
>
>
> Scott Morris wrote:
>
> > Actually, voice streams use a pair of ports (even and odd) for RTP and
> > RTCP stuff (voice data and control).
>
> This depends on what the endpoints are.
> Although true for CCM, this does not hold, e.g., for CME to Voip phone
> AFAIK. No RTCP there.
>
> >
> > The rtp priority command with "16384 16383" numbers isn't a range. In
> > that command, it's the starting port and number of ports
> > (16384+16383=32767) whereas the other command actually is a range with
> > start and stop information.
> >
> > HTH,
> >
> > Scott
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> > Of Steven A Ridder
> > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 8:57 PM
> > To: 'John Matus'; swm@emanon.com; 'lab'
> > Subject: RE: qos for voice
> >
> > The difference between the 1st and 2nd statement is as follows:
> >
> > The first statement (the udp 16384...) matched the payload and
> > signal/control traffic where the "IP RTP" statement captures the data
> > packets only. The first statement ensures that ALL RTP traffic
> > (payload and
> > signal) packets get matched. If I remember correctly, each RTP
> stream uses
> > 4 consecutive ports, starting with the first even port above 16384,
> so the
> > first stream uses 16384-16387. It's been a while, but I think that's
> > correct.
> >
> > Steve Ridder
> >
> >
> > -- RFC 1049 Compliant
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> > Of John Matus
> > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 8:08 PM
> > To: swm@emanon.com; 'lab'
> > Subject: Re: qos for voice
> >
> > i have no idea if it is working........it's a lab scenario
> >
> > i wasn't sure if the 'match rtp' somehow included the tcp 1720. i
> really
> > don't understand the difference between the two statements or why or
> > why not they would be used. any insite you could give would be most
> > helpful!
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Scott Morris" <swm@emanon.com>
> > To: "'John Matus'" <jmatus@pacbell.net>; "'lab'"
> > <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 4:36 PM
> > Subject: RE: qos for voice
> >
> >
> >
> >>Well, off the cuff, it would appear that you aren't matching the H225
> >>call setup (tcp/1720) in your second class. Otherwise, you are either
> >>matching on the RTP header or the UDP header information.
> >>
> >>Do they both work for you? ;)
> >>
> >>
> >>Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
> >>CISSP, JNCIP, et al. IPExpert CCIE Program Manager
> >>IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
> >>swm@emanon.com/smorris@ipexpert.net
> >>http://www.ipexpert.net
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf
> >>Of
> >
> > John
> >
> >>Matus
> >>Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 6:29 PM
> >>To: lab
> >>Subject: qos for voice
> >>
> >>is there a difference between the following??
> >>
> >>class-map match-all voip
> >>match access-group 101
> >>
> >>access-list 101 permit tcp any any 1720
> >>access-list 101 permit udp any any range 16384 32787
> >>
> >>AND
> >>
> >>class-map match-all voip
> >>match ip rtp 16384 16383
> >>
> >>
> >>do they perform the same function or are they completely different.
> >>i'm confused :)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>John D. Matus
> >>MCSE, CCNP
> >>Office: 818-782-2061
> >>Cell: 818-430-8372
> >>jmatus@pacbell.net
> >>
> >>______________________________________________________________________
> >>_
> >>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
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > _
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> Carlos G Mendioroz <tron@huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI Argentina
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
> **********************************************************************
> Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not
> necessarily the company. This email and any files transmitted with it
> are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient. If
> you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for
> delivering it to the intended recipient, be advised that you have
> received this email in error and that any dissemination, distribution,
> copying or use is strictly prohibited.
>
> If you have received this email in error, or if you are concerned with
> the content of this email please e-mail to: e-security.support@vanco.info
>
> The contents of an attachment to this e-mail may contain software
> viruses which could damage your own computer system. While the sender
> has taken every reasonable precaution to minimise this risk, we cannot
> accept liability for any damage which you sustain as a result of
> software viruses. You should carry out your own virus checks before
> opening any attachments to this e-mail.
> **********************************************************************
-- Carlos G Mendioroz <tron@huapi.ba.ar> LW7 EQI Argentina
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 03 2004 - 07:02:42 GMT-3