Re: QOS - RTP

Hey

The questions you get in the lab will tell you exactly what they are asking
for. They arent really ambiguous. At least that is my experience after 2
labs. Some of the workbook questions are ambiguous on purpose to get you to
think of all the options you have to answer a question.
Technically both your solutions will match voice traffic so if they dont
specify then they dont care.

Worst case scenario you get an question with multiple solutions and if you
really cant think of a preffered option i would ask the proctor.

Cheers,
Julian

On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 6:49 AM, Santiago Enciso
<senciso_at_infocenter.com.py>wrote:

> I would go for the first one adding "audio"
> I mean "match protocol rtp audio"
>
>
> HTH
>
> Santiago E
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: nobody_at_groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody_at_groupstudy.com] En nombre de
> Ruhann
> Enviado el: Miircoles, 01 de Abril de 2009 01:32 p.m.
> Para: Cisco certification
> Asunto: QOS - RTP
>
> Hi Guys
>
> Just a quick one regarding classifying "VOIP" traffic.
>
> If the question just state prioritize VOIP traffic, without any
> specification or limitation,
> would both solutions be valid?
>
> 1.
> class-map match-all VOIP1
> match protocol rtp
>
> 2.
> access 169 per udp any any range 16384 32767
> class-map match-all VOIP2
> match access-group 169
>
> With the first option, the packets are classified as RTP based on multiple
> attributes in the RTP header, rather than even UDP port numbers alone.
>
> Would both be correct if the LAB?
>
> Please be so kind to advise
> Regards
> --
> <ruhann>
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html
>
>
> Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Subscription information may be found at:
> http://www.groupstudy.com/list/CCIELab.html

Blogs and organic groups at http://www.ccie.net
Received on Thu Apr 02 2009 - 10:12:59 ART