From: Zack (Doc) (zack@tnan.net)
Date: Thu Aug 23 2007 - 01:05:48 ART
We have SIP/SPA's with the configuration as you have it below, and
it's working fine.
My understanding of the problem is that you tried to priority with
percent, while another part of the policy sets a hard bandwidth. I've
been told (by both Cisco and a fellow engineer), that you cannot mix
percentage and bandwidth within a policy, even though they are on
different classes.
On 8/21/07, mam phuquoc <mamphuquoc@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, so cisco recommended using just the priority command, then police the
> traffic and apply the policy, it seems to work for SIP/SPA with gig
> interface.
>
> policy-map core-egress
> class VoIP_RTP
> priority
> police cir 100000000 bc 3125000 be 3125000 conform-action transmit
> exceed-act
> ion drop violate-action drop
> class Video_Payload
> bandwidth 50000
> class Scavenger
> bandwidth 256
> policy-map sonet-shape
> class class-default
> shape average 300000000
> service-policy core-egress
>
> I wonder, if you police the priority queue, that would still carve up the
> buffer to allow the specified traffic to pass through, but I always thought
> police is more for congestion avoidance, not congestion management.
>
>
> On 8/18/07, Radioactive Frog <pbhatkoti@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi MAM,
> > A couple of months ago I have been through the same situation as you.
> > It is only supported if you have supported WAN interface module. For
> > example ATM module.
> >
> > Any ethernet blade doesn't have this feature on 65xx series.
> >
> > Frog
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 01 2007 - 11:32:12 ART