From: Dennis J. Hartmann (dennisjhartmann@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 17:19:07 GMT-3
Sorry to bring up an old subject, but I have NEVER seen a
reccomendation that suggested putting voice in the priority queue.
This doesn't make sense either. We want to put delay-sensitive real
time protocol (RTP) like voice payload and video conferening payload (at T-1
speeds and above) because this traffic relies on UDP and is connectionless
(spray and pray).
Call Setup and teardown (call control) is completely different
because it's TCP based (SCCP, H.323 and MGCP backhaul). Call control
packets can be retransmitted if lost. If call setup packets are lost and it
takes a little bit longer to setup a call, it's not a big deal. But if
we're taking bandwidth away from bearer traffic to make new calls, it could
be detrimental (although it's not a big deal because call control is
measures in bps while bearer calls are measure in kbps).
Please post the reference because I didn't find this in the 3.1 QoS
SRND. Thanks.
-Dennis Hartmann
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Chris Lewis (chrlewis)
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 10:35 PM
To: Kim, Edward B.; ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: RE: Voice and Voice Signaling
Current recommendation is to put the signaling in the same LLQ as the voice
traffic. Without signaling packets arriving properly, the data flow will not
happen, and the performance impact on the LLQ of including them is
negligible. However, there are no laws of nature for this. If the queue you
put the signaling packets in always delivers, there's no real downside to
doing that either. However, if it is not a priority queue, that is a big if.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of Kim,
Edward B.
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 10:25 PM
To: 'ccielab@groupstudy.com'
Subject: Voice and Voice Signaling
Guys,
I need your opinion.
We had a QoS Audit by a consultnat and his opinion was to have voice and
voice sinaling in a same queue. (in LLQ, don't differentiate them, but put
them in single queue) Even though I see the benefit of having one single
queue, I wanted to have 2 separate queues (different traffic) for
scalability (for different type of traffic/marking in the future) and
troubleshooting purposes (so we know which queue (type of traffic) is being
saturated, droped (i.e. show policy interface will show me which queue was
dropped and etc).
I wanted to know what your opinions are.
Please let me know.
Thank you.
Edward
Email Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this transmission
is confidential, proprietary or privileged and may be subject to protection
under the law, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability
Act (HIPAA).
The message is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to
whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
notified that any use, distribution or copying of the message is strictly
prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil penalties.
If you received this transmission in error, please contact the sender
immediately by replying to this email and delete the material from any
computer.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Dec 01 2005 - 09:12:07 GMT-3