From: ccie2be (ccie2be@nyc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Nov 14 2004 - 00:27:03 GMT-3
John,
Actually, there's no "pri" in the match prot ip rtp <low port#> <high port
#> statement.
According to Wendell Odom, in his book, DQOS, both do the same thing.
However, now Cisco recommends configuring ip rtp priority inside a
map-class.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Matus" <jmatus@pacbell.net>
To: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>; "Joe Chang" <changjoe@earthlink.net>;
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: ip rtp priorty with frts
> actaully, both configs were correct..........i left out "priority X" under
> CBWFQ because i wasn't sure how that translated to "frame ip rtp pri 16384
> 16383" since there is also no specific priority indicated <i.e.- 75%> how
> doest this second statement decide what the priority is??.....lets try
> again, since i now see on my router that i forgot to specify
bandwidth.....
>
> map-classs frame frts
> frame ip rtp priority 16384 16383 200
>
> and
>
> 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
> bandwidth 200
>
> ok,,,,,, now is there any functional difference ?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> John D. Matus
> MCSE, CCNP
> Office: 818-782-2061
> Cell: 818-430-8372
> jmatus@pacbell.net
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ccie2be" <ccie2be@nyc.rr.com>
> To: "Joe Chang" <changjoe@earthlink.net>; <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: ip rtp priorty with frts
>
>
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
> > 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