From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Fri Aug 13 2004 - 10:46:31 GMT-3
Very true. But again, the RFC for RTP operations specifies that RTCP must
also be used. So regardless of the initiating protocol (although I believe
we started talking H.323, hence the reference), the end result for what
appears SHOULD be the same...
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Carlos G Mendioroz
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 9:29 AM
To: swm@emanon.com
Cc: 'Richard Dumoulin'; 'lab'
Subject: Re: qos for voice
Scott,
the part of your "insanity" comes from associating Voip to H323 :-) Voip can
also use SIP, MGCP, SCCP, etc as call control.
All of them use RTP for voice transport.
CCM and CME both use SCCP (aka skinny) to do call control to Voip phones...
Scott Morris wrote:
> According to RFC 3550, all participants in an H.323 conversation
> (which is your two endpoints, being IP phones or routers with FXS
> ports) MUST send RTCP. Therefore, H.323 voice ALWAYS works in pairs
> of ports (which is good to know that I am not going insane, at least
> not for this part!)
>
> :)
>
> HTH,
>
>
> 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 <http://www.ipexpert.net/>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> From: Richard Dumoulin [mailto:richard.dumoulin@vanco.es]
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 6:06 AM
> To: Carlos G Mendioroz; Scott Morris
> Cc: 'lab'
> Subject: RE: qos for voice
>
> 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>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 03 2004 - 07:02:43 GMT-3