Reading over the QoS SRND and trying to get a better understanding of 3750 QoS 
and more specifically, the Conditionally-Trusted IP Phone + PC with 
Scavenger-Class QoS (Basic) Model. I understand the ACLs and marking traffic as 
well as queuing, but am having some difficulty in understanding the theory 
behind the policing within the Policy-Maps.

example:

class-map match-all VVLAN-VOICE
match access-group name VVLAN-VOICE

class-map match-all VVLAN-CALL-SIGNALING
match access-group name VVLAN-CALL-SIGNALING

policy-map IPPHONE+PC-BASIC
class VVLAN-VOICE
 set ip dscp 46
 police 128000 8000 exceed-action drop
class VVLAN-CALL-SIGNALING
 set ip dscp 24
 police 32000 8000 exceed-action policed-dscp-transmit


ip access list extended VVLAN-VOICE
permit udp 10.1.110.0 0.0.0.255 any range 16384 32767

ip access list extended VVLAN-CALL-SIGNALING
permit tcp 10.1.110.0 0.0.0.255 any range 2000 2002


the comment for the police statement under class VVLAN-VOICE states that this 
will only allow one voice call per switchport VVLAN.   So my question is (I 
hope this doesn't sound to dumb!), what happens to a 2nd,3rd, and so on 
concurrent call that may come from an IP Phone connected to a switchport with 
this policy?  Same question for the police statement under class 
VVLAN-CALL-SIGNALING.  Is it that any signaling traffic that exceeds 32k will 
be marked down to CS1?


any clarification on this would be much appreciated!


James



NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are 
intended
exclusively for the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message, 
together with any attachment, may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information.
Any unauthorized review, use, printing, saving, copying, disclosure or 
distribution 
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please 
immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete all copies.
_______________________________________________
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Reply via email to