Jonathan , If MLS QOS is not enabled everything is trusted. Switch port will just pass won't rewrite. As soon as MLS QOS is enabled everthing is untrusted by default.
On switch port trust use cos until and unless specified. Also make sure you have cos to DSCP mapping -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 24 July 2008 4:57 AM To: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com Subject: CCIE_Voice Digest, Vol 29, Issue 51 Send CCIE_Voice mailing list submissions to ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_voice or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can reach the person managing the list at [EMAIL PROTECTED] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CCIE_Voice digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: [cisco-voip] Trusting CoS on router uplink from switch... (Jonathan Charles) 2. Re: SRST/MGCP (Jonathan Charles) 3. Re: [cisco-voip] Trusting CoS on router uplink from switch... (Jonathan Charles) 4. Re: SRST/MGCP (Ricardo Arevalo) 5. Re: Phone CoS Settings ? (Devildoc) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:17:49 -0500 From: "Jonathan Charles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] [cisco-voip] Trusting CoS on router uplink from switch... To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: OSL CCIE Voice Lab Exam <ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com>, cisco voip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Well, I do have subinterfaces and it is a dot1q trunk to the gateway... just looking for a config to trust the CoS and DSCP... or wondering if the router will clear the DSCP and CoS.... Jonathan On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:38 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Charles, > You won't have COS on the link to the gateway as you won't have a > dot1.q/isl tag, unless you use subinterfaces on the router. > > I'd trusting on DSCP in that case. > > Did I get this one right, now? ;) > > T > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> Jonathan Charles >> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:58 PM >> To: cisco voip; OSL CCIE Voice Lab Exam >> Subject: [cisco-voip] Trusting CoS on router uplink from switch... >> >> OK, so we set the switch ports to trust CoS on the dot1q >> trunk from phone to switch... are these then trusted from >> that point on, or do we need to trust them elsewhere as well? >> >> Do we need to add any config to the voice gateways to trust >> the CoS coming from the switches? >> >> >> >> >> Jonathan >> _______________________________________________ >> cisco-voip mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >> > _______________________________________________ > > This e-mail may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, do not duplicate or redistribute it by any means. Please delete it and any attachments and notify the sender that you have received it in error. Unless specifically indicated, this e-mail is not an offer to buy or sell or a solicitation to buy or sell any securities, investment products or other financial product or service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an official statement of Barclays. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Barclays. This e-mail is subject to terms available at the following link: www.barcap.com/emaildisclaimer. By messaging with Barclays you consent to the foregoing. Barclays Capital is the investment banking division of Barclays Bank PLC, a company registered in England (number 1026167) with its registered off ice at 1 Churchill Place, London, E14 5HP. This email may relate to or be sent from other members of the Barclays Group. > _______________________________________________ > ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:35:35 -0500 From: "Jonathan Charles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] SRST/MGCP To: "Darren T. Manners" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 dialplan-pattern appears to be a trap... so, you may want to stay away from it... I would probably stick with outbound translation rules (to expand 4 digit to full e.164 to route via the PSTN in SRST/WAN down...) Jonathan On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Darren T. Manners <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When in SRST H323 fallback ..is it best practice to voice translation on the > voice ports or use the dialplan-pattern command under call-manager-fallback? > > Im confused about how the incoming phone call is translated to the SRST > phone dn?.any help appreciated. > > > > > > Example > > I have an inbound DID call of 222-333-4? > > > > If the wan is down I can use the voice translation-pattern of > > > > Rule 1 /^2223334\(?\)/ /\1/ > > > > This translates the incoming call to a 3 digit extension (I know 3 digits > bad?..but just an example) > > > > Would I therefore need the: > > > > ccm-manager-fallback (needed I know) > > dialplan-pattern 1 2223334? extension-length 4 > > > > If I don't need it how do I pass the caller id to the pstn? (isdn outgoing > display ie?) > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > Information Security Officer > > Mountain Empire Community College > CCIE (SEC) # 18929, CISSP (#85782), CCSP, GIAC GCIA (#0849) GCIH (#1348) > GCWN (#0467) CCVP, MCSE, ASE HP, CCA > > Tel: 276 523 2400 ext 226 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.mecc.edu > > > > 23/7/2008 > Darren T. Manners > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.mecc.edu > > This email is intended for the exclusive use by the person(s) mentioned as > recipient(s). This email and its attachments, if any, contain confidential > information and/or may contain information protected by intellectual > property rights or others rights. This email does not constitute any > commitment from Mountain Empire Community College or its subsidiaries except > when expressly agreed in a written agreement between the intended recipient > and Mountain Empire Community College or its subsidiaries. If you receive > this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this email > immediately from your system and destroy all copies of it. You may not, > directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print or copy this email > or any part of it if you are not the intended recipient. > ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:32:39 -0500 From: "Jonathan Charles" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] [cisco-voip] Trusting CoS on router uplink from switch... To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cos is recommended (per the QoS SRND) for any dot1q trunk... However, my concern is not the switch, but the voice gateway's Fast Ethernet to the switch... Do we need to trust outbound (switch to gateway), and inbound (on the gateway side...) Jonathan On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:28 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Someone correct me if wrong and might actually depend on IOS and type of > kit as well. > > As long as you don't have mls configured at all, you won't be rewriting > the DSCP fields. > If you have mls configured, you'll have to trust COS or DSCP whatever > you prefer otherwise you'll overwrite with default value. > > I am not sure if it's better to trust on DSCP or COS in this case, If > you are trunking you might as well stick to COS. Also you'll have wrr or > srr queues setup which will map to COS. > > Haven't touched qos for a while and seems like I do have to freshen up > on this topic ;) > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jonathan Charles [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 5:18 PM >> To: Mayr, Thorsten: IT (LDN) >> Cc: cisco voip; OSL CCIE Voice Lab Exam >> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] Trusting CoS on router uplink from switch... >> >> Well, I do have subinterfaces and it is a dot1q trunk to the >> gateway... just looking for a config to trust the CoS and >> DSCP... or wondering if the router will clear the DSCP and CoS.... >> >> >> >> Jonathan >> >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:38 AM, >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Charles, >> > You won't have COS on the link to the gateway as you won't have a >> > dot1.q/isl tag, unless you use subinterfaces on the router. >> > >> > I'd trusting on DSCP in that case. >> > >> > Did I get this one right, now? ;) >> > >> > T >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan >> >> Charles >> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:58 PM >> >> To: cisco voip; OSL CCIE Voice Lab Exam >> >> Subject: [cisco-voip] Trusting CoS on router uplink from switch... >> >> >> >> OK, so we set the switch ports to trust CoS on the dot1q >> trunk from >> >> phone to switch... are these then trusted from that point >> on, or do >> >> we need to trust them elsewhere as well? >> >> >> >> Do we need to add any config to the voice gateways to >> trust the CoS >> >> coming from the switches? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Jonathan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> cisco-voip mailing list >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > >> > This e-mail may contain information that is confidential, >> privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are >> not an intended recipient of this e-mail, do not duplicate or >> redistribute it by any means. Please delete it and any >> attachments and notify the sender that you have received it >> in error. Unless specifically indicated, this e-mail is not >> an offer to buy or sell or a solicitation to buy or sell any >> securities, investment products or other financial product or >> service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an >> official statement of Barclays. Any views or opinions >> presented are solely those of the author and do not >> necessarily represent those of Barclays. This e-mail is >> subject to terms available at the following link: >> www.barcap.com/emaildisclaimer. By messaging with Barclays >> you consent to the foregoing. Barclays Capital is the >> investment banking division of Barclays Bank PLC, a company >> registered in England (number 1026167) with its registered >> office at 1 Churchill Place, London, E14 5HP. This email may >> relate to or be sent from other members of the Barclays Group. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > > This e-mail may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, do not duplicate or redistribute it by any means. Please delete it and any attachments and notify the sender that you have received it in error. Unless specifically indicated, this e-mail is not an offer to buy or sell or a solicitation to buy or sell any securities, investment products or other financial product or service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an official statement of Barclays. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Barclays. This e-mail is subject to terms available at the following link: www.barcap.com/emaildisclaimer. By messaging with Barclays you consent to the foregoing. Barclays Capital is the investment banking division of Barclays Bank PLC, a company registered in England (number 1026167) with its registered off ice at 1 Churchill Place, London, E14 5HP. This email may relate to or be sent from other members of the Barclays Group. > _______________________________________________ > ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:10:43 -0400 From: "Ricardo Arevalo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] SRST/MGCP To: "Darren T. Manners" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Darren, Why dont you try something like this Using 4 digits extension in this case: voice translation-rule 1 rule 1 /^222333\(4...\)/ /\1/ rule 2 /^\(4...\)$/ /222333\1/ voice translation-profile pstn translate calling 1 translate called 1 translate redirect-called 1 And apply it: voice-port 1/0:23 translation-profile incoming pstn translation-profile outgoing pstn In your ISDN interface: isdn outgoing display-ie //r.a. On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Darren T. Manners <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When in SRST H323 fallback ..is it best practice to voice translation on > the voice ports or use the dialplan-pattern command under > call-manager-fallback? > > Im confused about how the incoming phone call is translated to the SRST > phone dn?.any help appreciated. > > > > > > Example > > I have an inbound DID call of 222-333-4? > > > > If the wan is down I can use the voice translation-pattern of > > > > Rule 1 /^2223334\(?\)/ /\1/ > > > > This translates the incoming call to a 3 digit extension (I know 3 digits > bad?..but just an example) > > > > Would I therefore need the: > > > > ccm-manager-fallback (needed I know) > > dialplan-pattern 1 2223334? extension-length 4 > > > > If I don't need it how do I pass the caller id to the pstn? (isdn outgoing > display ie?) > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > *Information Security* *Officer* > > *Mountain Empire Community College* > *CCIE (SEC) # 18929, CISSP (#85782), CCSP, GIAC GCIA* *(#0849) GCIH > (#1348) GCWN (#0467) CCVP, MCSE, ASE HP, CCA* > > Tel: 276 523 2400 ext 226 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.mecc.edu > > > > *23/7/2008 > Darren T. Manners > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.mecc.edu* > > *This* <http://This> email is intended for the exclusive use by the > person(s) mentioned as recipient(s). This email and its attachments, if any, > contain confidential information and/or may contain information protected by > intellectual property rights or others rights. This email does not > constitute any commitment from Mountain Empire Community College or its > subsidiaries except when expressly agreed in a written agreement between the > intended recipient and Mountain Empire Community College or its > subsidiaries. If you receive this email by mistake, please notify the sender > and delete this email immediately from your system and destroy all copies of > it. You may not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print or > copy this email or any part of it if you are not the intended recipient. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://onlinestudylist.com/pipermail/ccie_voice/attachments/20080723/d40 ec871/attachment-0001.html ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:57:15 -0700 From: Devildoc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Phone CoS Settings ? To: Mike Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Your definition is reversed. The command "switchport priority extend cos 0" does NOT allow the IP phone to reset the COS value received from the PC. It's the opposite of that. That command is FOR the switch to reset the COS value received from ANY device connected on the IP phone to a COS value of 0. JD> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:51:21 -0400> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com> Subject: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Phone CoS Settings ?> > Hi Everyone,> > I see that the standard practice on a switchport is to configure> "switchport priority extend cos 0" in order to allow the ip phone to> reset the cos value received from the PC to 0.> > My question is how would a PC ever set a "CoS" value if the link> between the ip phone and the PC is not an 802.1q trunk ?> > Can someone please help me understand this ? The only thing I can> think of is that the PC would somehow have to support an 802.1q trunk> to it, a trunk would have to be dynamically established between the> phone and PC. And, then the user would have to manipulate the CoS> value. Is this possible with a Cisco phone ?> > If this is the only case this would work then you would think that> Cisco would document these pre-requisites. Perhaps I am confused.> > Please help ;-)> > Regards,> > Mike Brooks> CC IE#16027 (R&S) _________________________________________________________________ Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_mes senger2_072008 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://onlinestudylist.com/pipermail/ccie_voice/attachments/20080723/64f 93907/attachment.html ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ CCIE_Voice mailing list CCIE_Voice@onlinestudylist.com http://onlinestudylist.com/mailman/listinfo/ccie_voice End of CCIE_Voice Digest, Vol 29, Issue 51 ******************************************
