From: Sidalo (sidalo@gmail.com)
Date: Sun Aug 20 2006 - 02:51:28 ART
What Scott was saying was that by classifying the voice traffic into the
Priority Queue, it will not be fragmented.
Gonna try and lab that up when I get back from some upgrades in a couple
hours. If someone can beat me to it and provide results that would be good
as well.
On 8/19/06, Udo Konstantin <ccie_groupstudy@yahoo.de> wrote:
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> the primary challenge was ....
>
> traffic over 120kb lemgth should be fragmented and voice traffic should
> never fragmented even if the packet length over 120
> Did you also have a solution for this ?I think this shoul be the
> solution :
>
> 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
>
> Udo
>
> > So, to answer the question below, it's really quite simple:
> >
> > class-map Voice
> > match access-list 101
> > access-list 101 permit udp any any range 16384 32767 prec 5
> > policy-map GoodVoice
> > class Voice
> > priority (some number here, which may be guessing, or information
> given
> > other places!)
> >
> > map-class frame-relay FragMe
> > frame-relay fragment 120
> > service-policy output GoodVoice
> >
> > int s0/1/0
> > frame-relay interface-dlci 204
> > class FragMe
> >
> > Or the map-class and service-policy could be applied per interface
> depending
> > on what the exact scenario was. In the end, the handling should be what
> we
> > desire.
> >
> > Obviously, pay attention to the scenario itself, but based on the
> generic
> > information below this would be my approach. (which, by the way, the
> "kb"
> > part wouldn't be there!)
> >
> >
> > Scott Morris, CCIE4 (R&S/ISP-Dial/Security/Service Provider) #4713,
> JNCIE
> > #153, CISSP, et al.
> > CCSI/JNCI-M/JNCI-J
> > IPExpert VP - Curriculum Development
> > IPExpert Sr. Technical Instructor
> > smorris@ipexpert.com
> > http://www.ipexpert.com
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com] On Behalf Of
> > Sidalo
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___________________________________________________________
> > > Der fr|he Vogel fdngt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo!
> Mail:
> > > http://mail.yahoo.de
> > >
> > > ______________________________________________________________________
> > > _ 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> Der fr|he Vogel fdngt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail:
> http://mail.yahoo.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 01 2006 - 15:41:57 ART