Difference between matching voice in map-class frame-relay or

From: Quetta Walla (quetta_1@lycos.com)
Date: Wed Nov 02 2005 - 14:51:21 GMT-3

• Next message: Vincent Mashburn: "RE: Frame-relay physical and sub-interface"
• Previous message: serge Hacobian: "Lab exam date"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hello,

Could some please explain what is the difference of matching voice in MQC way using LLQ and then calling the policy-map inside map-class frame-relay and the other option: directly matching and assigning priority bandwidth within map-class fame-relay. Here is an example:

map-class frame-relay VOIPoverFR
 frame-relay cir 256000
 frame-relay bc 2560
 frame-relay mincir 256000
 frame-relay fair-queue
 frame-relay fragment 320
 frame-relay ip rtp priority 16384 16383 60

And the MQC way:

ip access-list extended VOICE
 permit udp any any range 16348 32767
!
class-map match-all VOIP
match access-group name VOICE
!

policy-map VOICEpolicy
class VOIP
priority 60
class class-default
fair-queue
!
and then
map-class frame-relay VOIPoverFR
 frame-relay cir 256000
 frame-relay bc 2560
 frame-relay mincir 256000
 frame-relay fair-queue
 frame-relay fragment 320
 service-policy output VOICEpolicy

We can't do both, or matching voice inside map-class frame-relay will take precedence.

Thanks.

-- 

• Next message: Vincent Mashburn: "RE: Frame-relay physical and sub-interface"
• Previous message: serge Hacobian: "Lab exam date"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 01 2005 - 09:12:04 GMT-3