QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?

From: Antonio Soares (amsoares@netcabo.pt)
Date: Sun Jul 08 2007 - 11:23:01 ART

Next message: Narbik Kocharians: "Re: wording in the lab // advertise in the OSPF domain"
Previous message: Antonio Soares: "RE: wording in the lab // advertise in the OSPF domain"
Next in thread: Ben: "Re: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Ben: "Re: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Antonio Soares: "RE: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Gary Duncanson: "Re: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Ben: "Re: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Gustavo Novais: "RE: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Antonio Soares: "RE: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Laurean Stefenel: "RE: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Mike Kraus \(mikraus\): "RE: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Laurean Stefenel: "RE: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hello group,

I know that there are at least 2 ways to match RTP/RTCP packets:

!
class-map match-all RTP-and-RTCP
match access-group 100
!
access-list 100 permit udp any any range 16384 32767
!

!
class-map match-all RTP
match protocol rtp audio
match protocol rtcp
!

But what about call signaling ? In the real world i know we must take it
into account but in the lab, should we care about it ? I found the list
bellow on a CCO document:

H.323/H.225 = TCP 1720
H.323/H.245 = TCP 11xxx (Standard Connect)
H.323/H.245 = TCP 1720 (Fast Connect)
H.323/H.225 RAS = TCP 1719
Skinny = TCP 2000-2002 (CM Encore)
ICCP = TCP 8001-8002 (CM Encore)
MGCP = UDP 2427, TCP 2428 (CM Encore)
SIP= UDP 5060, TCP 5060 (configurable)

Thanks,
Antonio

Next message: Narbik Kocharians: "Re: wording in the lab // advertise in the OSPF domain"
Previous message: Antonio Soares: "RE: wording in the lab // advertise in the OSPF domain"
Next in thread: Ben: "Re: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Ben: "Re: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Antonio Soares: "RE: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Gary Duncanson: "Re: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Ben: "Re: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Gustavo Novais: "RE: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Antonio Soares: "RE: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Laurean Stefenel: "RE: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Mike Kraus \(mikraus\): "RE: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Maybe reply: Laurean Stefenel: "RE: QoS for Voice Calls - Should we care about Signaling ?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Aug 18 2007 - 08:17:40 ART