From: Joseph D. Phillips (josephdphillips@fastmail.us)
Date: Fri Aug 13 2004 - 11:57:41 GMT-3
What's "CME"?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos G Mendioroz" <tron@huapi.ba.ar>
To: <swm@emanon.com>
Cc: "'Richard Dumoulin'" <richard.dumoulin@vanco.es>; "'lab'"
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 06:53
Subject: Re: qos for voice
> If that's the case, CME's implementation of RTP is non conformant...
>
> Scott Morris wrote:
> > 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>
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > 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>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 Sep 03 2004 - 07:02:43 GMT-3