From: Dave Meyer (dave.meyer@db.com)
Date: Wed Aug 25 2004 - 23:55:48 GMT-3
So , if I have 0 CIR today with no traffic shaping & no voice......
and tomorrow I have....
Data & voice shared PVC's with CIR=port with DE = non voice ( non dscp ef as per markings )
AND a LLQ = @ 10% of the port with additional data CBWFQ
This will potentially guarantee the 10% voice traffic in the priority queue , a SP committed rate of CIR ( which will never be reached
by the voice traffic due to the priority queue policing)
and the full access rate for the remaining data traffic, which will be DE in the SP cloud during congestion ?
Regards,
Dave
______________________________________________
Architecture & Engineering
Work: (973) 682-4435
Cell: (973)907-4963
"Scott Morris"
<swm@emanon.com> To: "'asadovnikov'" <asadovnikov@comcast.net>, Dave Meyer/NewYork/DBNA/DeuBa@DBNA
Sent by: cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
nobody@groupstudy Subject: RE: OT - Frame relay QOS
.com
08/25/2004 09:46
PM
Please respond to
"Scott Morris"
You could also consider using a de-list to "pre-classify" which things were
going to be discard elegible and which were not.
But it can still be a dangerous game to play!
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
asadovnikov
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 7:56 PM
To: 'Dave Meyer'
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: OT - Frame relay QOS
Dave,
Cisco recommendation is to have CIR from you provider equal to your shaping
rate, in other words CIR would be equal voice + data, not just voice. The
logic behind such recommendation is that after frames go into the cloud
provider can discard anything above CIR and they will not be able to say if
it is a voice frame or a data frame, so if you shape above CIR you subject
your voice frames to a risk of the drop by your provider, and voice calls
can not sustain any significant rate of packet drops.
I happen to agree with Cisco recommendation in this case and have seen very
negative results when people have to tried to do otherwise (not to say that
your experience with a particular provider will be the same).
Best Regards,
Alexei
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Meyer
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 3:29 PM
To: mani poopal <mani_ccie
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: OT - Frame relay QOS
Hi Mani,
If I use a CIR=LLQ to for the voice( and not allowing to burst ) do I waste
the potential BW of the link ?
" The Frame Relay excess burst (Be) value is not set and therefore defaults
to 0, preventing any bursting over CIR. This is the recommended
configuration for traffic shaping when carrying VoIP "
Regards,
Dave
______________________________________________
Architecture & Engineering
Work: (973) 682-4435
Cell: (973)907-4963
mani poopal <mani_ccie@yahoo.com>
08/25/2004 03:20 PM
To: Dave Meyer/NewYork/DBNA/DeuBa@DBNA, ccielab@groupstudy.com
cc:
Subject: Re: OT - Frame relay QOS
Hi Dave,
If you have enough bandwidth under CIR by using LLQ(under class based WFQ)
the bandwidth is guaranteed for VoIP traffic. You can also use ip rtp
priotiy 16384 16383 command instead of LLQ(this method is not preferred
method by cisco)
Mani
Dave Meyer <dave.meyer@db.com> wrote:
Just wanted to get some opinions on this.........
Currently have FR circuits with 0 CIR & would like to implement VOIP.
If we purchased a CIR = amount we expect to reserve for VOIP ( no
signaling) , and assigned the appropriate LLQ, would we expect the voice
traffic to be guaranteed by the CIR ?
Regards,
Dave
______________________________________________
Architecture & Engineering
Work: (973) 682-4435
Cell: (973)907-4963
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 03 2004 - 07:02:48 GMT-3