RE: frame-relay fragment & exclude voice pakkets from being

From: Paul Dardinski (pauld@marshallcomm.com)
Date: Sat Aug 19 2006 - 14:06:03 ART


According to cco, frame fragment has to happen within map-class. There
is no keyword for frame fragment I know of for mqc. Assuming this to be
the case, can't see how the question originally posted could be
answered.

  _____

From: Sidalo [mailto:sidalo@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 1:01 PM
To: Paul Dardinski
Cc: Cisco certification
Subject: Re: frame-relay fragment & exclude voice pakkets from being
fragmented

Obviously there is a reason this keep coming up, even though we havent
see it in the big vendors lab workbooks. (unless it has since been
added)

I know for me, I would certainly figure this out before I go in for my
next lab attempt.

On 8/19/06, Paul Dardinski <pauld@marshallcomm.com> wrote:

I am confused. How does one apply frame fragmentation within the mqc?
Required for within map-class, correct? If within map-class, how would
differentiate between packet sizes for selective fragmentation?

-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
Udo Konstantin
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 10:54 AM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: frame-relay fragment & exclude voice pakkets from being
fragmented

Hi group,

I read this thread but right now I don't had a answer about the
following requirements

Traffic over 120 kb length should be fragmented, voice traffic should
never fragmented, even if the packet length over 120 kb

All other traff < 120 kb should not be fragmented

My solution

class-map DATA
        match packet length max 120000

policy-map FRAG
        class DATA
        frame-relay fragment ?? <not sure about the size>

interface Serial0/0
ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0
ip rtp header-compression
encapsulation frame-relay
frame-relay interface-dlci xxx
  class FRAG

or should I configure
service-policy output FRAG (Interface Config Mode)

Thanks...

Udo



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 01 2006 - 15:41:57 ART