From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Tue Oct 11 2005 - 10:19:12 GMT-3
I know. :) The point was though, that control traffic shouldn't make any
difference.
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Hooman Parta [mailto:hooman@voipsol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:14 AM
To: 'Scott Morris'; 'Stefan Grey'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Qos question! (Voice)
I think it was a typo for 1720.
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Scott Morris
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 6:13 AM
To: 'Stefan Grey'; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Qos question! (Voice)
I think you need to look at your port number a bit closer.
16384 to 32767 is the correct udp range.
I have no idea what port 1620 is for tcp.
When looking to classify things for voice, there generally is no need to
include things like the control channels (your tcp setup) because tcp
obviously has its own mechanism for guaranteeing that it was seen, and
there's not a lot of conversation happening there or latency issues. All
the issues (and need to queue) happen within the data channels which is the
RTP stream.
Just fix your numbers and it'll be fine. :)
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Stefan Grey
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:15 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Qos question! (Voice)
Hi group,
Could anybody please clarify..
In some Qos scenarious it is told to do something for VOICE class. How to
mark Voice traffic????
1. access-list 110 permit udp any any range 16384 16767 Or it would be
incorrect???
2.access-list 110 permit udp any any range 16384 16767 access-list 110
permit tcp any any eq 1620
Woul the 1 question be correct to mark voice traffic/critical voice
traffic?? Please explain this unclear for me situation.
Thanks.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Nov 06 2005 - 22:00:50 GMT-3