From: Petr Lapukhov (petrsoft@gmail.com)
Date: Wed May 31 2006 - 11:10:13 ART
Dave,
First you omit "frame-relay traffic-shaping" at interface level :)
Without that, legacy fragmentation won't work, and dual-fifo will
not be engaged.
You may verify that, issuing "show frame-relay fragment".
Second, i don't think that will work...
Just try ICMP instead of RTP, and then do "debug frame fragment"
Remember, fragmentation is performed after dequeueing.. And
service-policy here just establish per-VC CBWFQ strategy.
Petr
2006/5/31, Schulz, Dave <DSchulz@dpsciences.com>:
>
> How about something like this.....with frame, for example.....
>
> R1#sh run
> !
> !
> class-map match-all NO_VOICE
> match not ip rtp 16384 16383
> !
> !
> policy-map FRAGMENT
> class NO_VOICE
> !
> !
> interface Serial0/0
> ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
> encapsulation frame-relay
> no ip split-horizon eigrp 100
> frame-relay map ip 192.168.1.1 102
> frame-relay map ip 192.168.1.2 102 broadcast
> frame-relay map ip 192.168.1.3 103 broadcast
> frame-relay interface-dlci 102
> class FRAG
> no frame-relay inverse-arp
> !
> !
> !
> map-class frame-relay FRAG
> service-policy output FRAGMENT
> frame-relay fragment 40
> !
>
> R1#sh policy-map int s0/0
> Serial0/0: DLCI 102 -
>
> Service-policy output: FRAGMENT
>
> Class-map: NO_VOICE (match-all)
> 0 packets, 0 bytes
> 5 minute offered rate 0 bps
> Match: not ip rtp 16384 16383
>
> Class-map: class-default (match-any)
> 0 packets, 0 bytes
> 5 minute offered rate 0 bps, drop rate 0 bps
> Match: any
>
>
>
> Dave Schulz,
>
> Email: dschulz@dpsciences.com
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> Chris Lewis
> Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 9:17 AM
> To: Petr Lapukhov
> Cc: Koen Zeilstra; ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Re: frame-relay fragment & exclude voice pakkets from being
> fragmented
>
> Petr is correct in that there is no way to "conditionally" fragment
> packets
> in the IOS seen in the R&S lab. The 7500 has the capability to do this,
> but
> of course you will not see that in the exam.
>
> It is possible to configure a router to not fragment voice packets if
> you
> make one big assumption, and that is you have voice ports directly
> connected
> on the router and are doing voice over frame relay directly (not voice
> over
> IP) and configure FRF.11 annex C. This is done with the vofr keyword in
> the
> map-class and sets a field in the vofr header that effectively says "do
> not
> fragment".
>
> This would however be a big assumption as there are no longer voice
> ports on
> routers in the R&S exam :)
>
> Chris
>
>
> On 5/31/06, Petr Lapukhov <petrsoft@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > AFAIK no. Fragmentation decision is based solely on packet size.
> > Nothing else will affect it :) So the good away to keep you data
> > unfragmented, is to compress them.
> >
> > The other possible way may be to change IP MTU at interface to some
> very
> > low
> >
> > value, so that packets are "fragmented" at L3 :)
> >
> > HTH
> > Petr
> >
> > 2006/5/31, Koen Zeilstra <koen@koenzeilstra.com>:
> > >
> > > So that's more an avoid scenario than a conditional fragmentation
> > > scenario, I guess?
> > >
> > > Conditional fragmentation is not possible?
> > >
> > > -----------------------
> > > One good reason why computers can do more work than people is that
> they
> > > never have to stop and answer the phone.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 31 May 2006, Petr Lapukhov wrote:
> > >
> > > | Koen,
> > > |
> > > | You can try "frame-relay ip rtp header compression"
> > > |
> > > | That will shrink voice packets from average 60, to 20+, and
> > > | will help them avoid fragmentation.
> > > |
> > > | HTH
> > > | Petr
> > > |
> > > | 2006/5/31, Koen Zeilstra <koen@koenzeilstra.com>:
> > > | >
> > > | > Hi group,
> > > | >
> > > | > Suppose I want to use frame-relay fragmentation and use
> fragments of
> > > 60.
> > > | > However voice traffic should not be fragemented at all. How is
> this
> > > | > achieved?
> > > | >
> > > | > A service policy under a FR can select more options however
> > > fragmentation
> > > | > is not part of the policy-map options.
> > > | >
> > > | > On DocCD I found frame-relay ip rtp priority. Hoever in my
> opionion
> > > this
> > > | > is a queueing strategy and not excluding traffic from being
> > > fragemented.
> > > | >
> > > | > thanks in advance for your answer,
> > > | >
> > > | > Koen
> > > | >
> > > | >
> > >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > > | > 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
> > > |
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> > 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 : Thu Jun 01 2006 - 06:33:23 ART