From: DaveW (kapsi1911@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Apr 30 2005 - 20:20:04 GMT-3
If given the requirement to "classify video traffic coming in over http"
I would think your best bet would be to use a MQC "match protocol http mime
"video/*" command.
DAve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Shaikh, Nasir" <Nasir.Shaikh@atosorigin.com>
To: "DaveW" <kapsi1911@hotmail.com>; "Cisco certification"
<ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2005 7:01 AM
Subject: RE: voice traffic definition (inc video)
> Hi Dave,
>
> ..and how would one classify video traffic coming in over http?
>
> Nasir
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> DaveW
> Sent: maandag 18 april 2005 5:23
> To: Cisco certification
> Subject: Re: voice traffic definition
>
>
> Mani,
>
> The "match ip rtp 16384 16383" command matches even UDP ports in the range
> of 16384 - 32767. If another (non-voice) application happened to use UDP
and
> ports in this range, it would also match.
>
> The "match protocol rtp <audio>|<video>|<payload-type>" is a granular way
to
> classify RTP streams. NBAR will look at the RTP header payload type
values.
> So this would allow you to differentiate between audio (and video) CODECS.
> It's also a way to MAKE SURE you are classifying audio (VOIP) traffic. You
> can always just use the "match protocol rtp audio" command alone if you
> don't want to get into specifying payload types. This will catch most of
the
> well known audio CODECS like G711, G729, etc... It catches payload types
> 0-23.
>
> Here is a link to the assigned payload type values:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters
>
>
> I would think you're access-list would accomplish the same thing as the
> "match ip rtp 16384 16383" command but would also match odd number ports
in
> the 16384 - 32767 range, so you would also be classifying control traffic
> (RTCP). I would lose the "permit tcp any any eq 1720" line though. I'm
> pretty sure we don't have to worry about H.323/H.225 for the R&S lab. I
> personally think the best method to match VOIP traffic traveling from one
> network to another would be to use a combination of NBAR and an
access-list
> which matches on the source/destination networks:
>
> class-map match-all VOIP
> match protocol rtp audio
> match access-group name NETWORKS
>
>
> DAve
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "mani poopal" <mani_ccie@yahoo.com>
> > To: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> > Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 9:38 PM
> > Subject: voice traffic definition
> >
> >
> > > Hi Guys,
> > >
> > > I have seen scenarios asking to define some variables(bandwidth, ip
> > precedence, next hop etc) for voice traffic. What is the syntax of
> > defining voice traffic.
> > > (A.)
> > > permit tcp any any eq 1720
> > > permit udp any any range 16384 32767
> > >
> > > (B.)
> > > class-map VOICE
> > > match protocol rtp<--Is it voice traffic or rtp traffic
> > >
> > > (C.)
> > > class-map VOICE
> > > match ip rtp priority 16384 16387
> > >
> > > I think only A, C define voice traffic(is it same as voice over ip),
and
> > when they ask for voice traffic going from some network to anothe
network
> we
> > have to use option A. When they don't specify source/destination, we
can
> go
> > with option B.
> > > Guys what is the difference between match protcol rtp and match ip rtp
> > priority 16384 16387, any insights in to above three commands with
> > explanations are appreciated.
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > Mani
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > B.ENG,A+,CCNA,CCNP,CCNP-VOICE, CSS1,CNA,MCSE
> > > (416)431 9929
> > > MANI_CCIE@YAHOO.COM
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > >
> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue May 03 2005 - 07:55:11 GMT-3