From: Scott Morris (swm@emanon.com)
Date: Fri May 12 2006 - 12:56:51 ART
That would take all the fun out of it. ;)
Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE
#153, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI
IPExpert CCIE Program Manager
IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
smorris@ipexpert.com
http://www.ipexpert.com
_____
From: CCIEin2006 [mailto:ciscocciein2006@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 11:01 AM
To: swm@emanon.com
Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Re: Matching VOIP packets in a class map
Thanks for your response.
Its kinda strange that they would call that a "Range of UDP ports"
They should call it "Number of Ports in Range"
Why is it when you do an acl you enter a range like so:
access-list 100 permit udp any any range 16383 32767
Can't Cisco keep anything consistent?
On 5/12/06, Scott Morris <swm@emanon.com> wrote:
Because it's not a range as in low-high #.
Emanon-R1(config-route-map)#class-map Who-Knows
Emanon-R1(config-cmap)#match ip rtp ?
<2000-65535> Lower bound of UDP destination port
Emanon-R1(config-cmap)#match ip rtp 16384 ?
<0-16383> Range of UDP ports
Emanon-R1(config-cmap)#match ip rtp 16384 16383 ?
<cr>
Emanon-R1(config-cmap)#
So you give it your starting point and then the number of ports (e.g. 16384
+ 16383 of them = 16384-32767)
HTH,
Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713, JNCIE
#153, CISSP, et al.
CCSI/JNCI
IPExpert CCIE Program Manager
IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
smorris@ipexpert.com
http://www.ipexpert.com <http://www.ipexpert.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
CCIEin2006
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 10:33 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Matching VOIP packets in a class map
Hello group,
I am confused about the proper way to match on voice packets in a class map.
According to Odom's QOS book, he often uses the following commands:
class-map match-all voip-rtp
match ip rtp 16384 16383
Is he specifically matching only 16384 and 16383 or is he matching a range?
Why does he place 16383 before 16384?
Thanks
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:21 ART