From: John Matus (jmatus@pacbell.net)
Date: Thu Sep 09 2004 - 00:02:54 GMT-3
an idea when that thread might have taken place?
Regards,
John D. Matus
MCSE, CCNP
Office: 818-782-2061
Cell: 818-430-8372
jmatus@pacbell.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Joseph" <samjoseph747@hotmail.com>
To: <jmatus@pacbell.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 7:57 PM
Subject: RE: classifying voice for cbwfq
Hi John,
There is a Thread on this in Archives. Scott of IPExpert gave good
Explanation for this. May be you might want to refer the Archive.
Thanks,
Sam.
>From: "John Matus" <jmatus@pacbell.net>
>Reply-To: "John Matus" <jmatus@pacbell.net>
>To: "lab" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
>Subject: classifying voice for cbwfq
>Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 16:30:58 -0700
>
>got a question regarding classifying voice....
>
>is there a difference between:
>
>match ip rtp 16384 16383
>
>and
>
>match access-g 101
>access-g 101 permit udp any any range 16384 to 32767
>access-g 101 pemit tcp any any eq 1720
>
>i know that tcp 1720 is for signaling, but i wasn't quite sure if the first
>class-map encompassed it by default.
>
>also, i've seen in cisco documentation a different range for udp
>ports.....16387 - 32767 and 16387-32768......which one is correct or are
>they
>both correct?
>
>
>Regards,
>
>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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 15:00:40 GMT-3