From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Nov 13 2004 - 21:43:01 GMT-3
Hey Joe,
I think the 2nd example was just incomplete. I suspect the 2nd was meant to
look like this:
map-class frame frts
service policy out rtp
class-map match-all rtp
match prot ip rtp 16384 16383
policy-map rtp
class rtp
priority X
I think there was another mistake (or typo) that confused the issue a bit.
In the 2nd example under the class-map, the match prot statement had match
prot ip rtp **pri** 16384 16383 instead of match prot ip rtp 16384 16383.
Also, I think the above DOES create a strict priority queue for rtp traffic,
assuming the 2nd example as shown above is what was meant. In fact, the
example above is also known as LLQ. So, it's my thought that both examples
do the same thing.
Do you agree?
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Chang" <changjoe@earthlink.net>
To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: ip rtp priorty with frts
> The first config:
>
> > map-classs frame frts
> > frame ip rtp priority 16384 16383
>
> creates a priority queue for rtp traffic, in addition to the other shaping
queues FRTS utilizes.
>
> The second config:
>
> > map-class frame frts
> > service policy out rtp
> >
> > class-map match-all rtp
> > match pro ip rtp pri 16384 16383
> >
> > policy-map rtp
> > class rtp...............
>
> creates a CBWFQ shaping queue, but does not seem to prioritze the rtp
traffic.
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 02 2004 - 06:57:43 GMT-3