From: Alexei Monastyrnyi (alexeim@orcsoftware.com)
Date: Mon Apr 24 2006 - 11:42:54 GMT-3
I would go for RTP priority + LFI (+ possibly RTP header compression) to
help voice packets co-exist with large-volume traffic on interfaces with
slow serialization.
A.
on 24/04/2006 16:09 Vincent Mashburn wrote:
> If it is just voice that you want to prioritize, I would use the ip rtp
> priority command. This is because as soon as the voice packet enters
> the queue, it is sent out to the link. If you just gave the voice
> traffic a specific amount of bandwidth, there is no telling how long the
> rtp packet would be in the queue before transmission, hence jitter. The
> downside to rtp priority is that if there is anything other than rtp
> that you need give priority (like control traffic) you cannot do it.
> You must use some other means. Hope this is what you are looking for.
> Thanks
> Vince Mashburn
> Voice / Data Engineer
> 901-263-5072
> Cisco IP Telephony Support Specialist
> CCNP, CCDA,Network +
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Schulz, Dave
> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 8:35 AM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Voice over frame
>
> Group -
>
> If I am going to make sure that I reserve bandwidth for voice across the
> frame....would it be more correct to do this:
>
> map-class frame-relay FR
> frame-relay fair-queue
> frame-relay voice bandwidth 1000000
>
>
> or, this.....
>
> map-class frame-relay FR
> frame-relay ip rtp priority 16384 16383 1000
> !
>
> Dave
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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 : Mon May 01 2006 - 11:41:59 GMT-3