Yes you do need to have traffic-shaping on the physical From: ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com [mailto:ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com] On Behalf Of Ryan Trauernicht Sent: Tuesday, 13 January 2009 10:05 AM To: Vik Malhi Cc: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] QOS MLP 1 link and FRF Shaping the other verification
Another question is..... If you use the traditional way for low speed links... (cir, mincir, bc, be) it is required to do the frame-relay traffic-shaping on the physical isnt it? On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Ryan Trauernicht <ryanstudyvo...@gmail.com<mailto:ryanstudyvo...@gmail.com>> wrote: That is what I thought. do you think it is over kill if they ask you to not mark anything on the switch level but configure MLP on 1 link and FRF.12 on other other pipe to mark on the ingress of the FA and match on the outgress of the Serial? Even though I have changed the CTI, IPVMSA paramaters to mark CS3 already. I saw last night that the 6608 keepalives all still use AF31. something like this.. class-map match-any RTP-WAN match ip dscp ef class-map match-any SCCP-WAN match ip dscp cs3 class-map match-any RTP-LAN match ip dscp ef match access-group RTP class-map match-any SCCP-LAN match ip dscp cs3 match ip dscp af31 match ip access-group SCCP access-list extended RTP permit ip udp any any range 16384 32767 access-list extended SCCP permit ip tcp any any range 2000 2002 permit ip tcp any any range 11000 11999 permit ip udp any any eq 2427 permit ip tcp any any eq 2428 permit ip udp any any eq 5060 permit ip tcp any any eq 5060 permit ip tcp any any eq 1718 permit ip udp any any eq 1719 permit ip tcp any any eq 1720 On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Vik Malhi <vma...@ipexpert.com<mailto:vma...@ipexpert.com>> wrote: You must do it the old school way if you are using a single physical interface. The old school way being FRTS as opposed to class-based shaping. Vik Malhi - CCIE#13890 Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert Inc Telephone: +1.810.326.1444 Fax: +1.810.454.0130 Mailto: vma...@ipexpert.com<mailto:vma...@ipexpert.com> Join IPexpert's Free CCIE Peer Groups & Study Communities at www.IPexpert.com/communities<http://www.IPexpert.com/communities> On Jan 12, 2009, at 2:43 PM, "Ryan Trauernicht" <ryanstudyvo...@gmail.com<mailto:ryanstudyvo...@gmail.com>> wrote: I know when you put the "frame-relay traffic-shaping" on the physical interface it turns all the CIRs down to 56k. If you have 1 pipe that is MLP FRF which you need to put that command on the interface and the other pip is just shaping FRF. I just wanted to make sure you can not do the nested policy-map way. You must do it the old school map-class way for (cir, mincir, bc, be). Vik can you comment on that or anyone else who knows for sure. Thanks, Ryan Trauernicht ________________________________ CONFIDENTIALITY - The information contained in this electronic mail message is confidential and is intended solely for the addressee(s). If you are not an authorised recipient of this message please contact Getronics Australia immediately by reply email and destroy/delete this message from your computer. Any unauthorised form of reproduction of this message, or part thereof, is strictly prohibited. DISCLAIMER - Unless specifically indicated otherwise, the views and opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not Getronics Australia. While we endeavour to protect our network from computer viruses, Getronics Australia does not warrant that this email or any attachments are free of viruses or any other defects or errors. It is the duty of the recipient to virus scan and otherwise test any information contained in this email before loading onto any computer system.
