So it seems like there is typo on page 611 vol1 La10A. It says " So we are allowing* two *calls in our RSVP enabled infra.....
it shoudl be *three* here I beleive.. Vik/Mark can you please validate it please? On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Michael Ciarfello <mciarfe...@iplogic.com>wrote: > Looks good. 2 calls is 64. > > > > Add in what Daniel says about the priority LLQ command in needing to add in > layer 2 to that value. (24 + l2 * 2 calls) Worst case shouldn’t go in the > priority because the call is established (and is now 24) and RTP is > streaming by the time the priority LLQ is hit. There is no RTP to > prioritize when the call still think’s it’s 40. > > > > *From:* vccie2010 [mailto:vccie2...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, October 19, 2009 2:05 PM > *To:* Michael Ciarfello > *Cc:* ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com > *Subject:* Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 10A - priority 88 > > > > it says " Nth value be th eworst case BW to ensure that Nth call gets > admitted" so for 2 calls I think it should be > > > > for 1st call =24 > > for Nth (2nd call_ = 40 > > > > so total shd be 64 > > > > am I missing somehting here ? > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Michael Ciarfello < > mciarfe...@iplogic.com> wrote: > > I don’t remember the question, but I think there were a couple of typos in > those types of questions. > > What do you think the value should be and how did you arrive at that value? > > > > > > *From:* ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com [mailto: > ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com] *On Behalf Of *vccie2010 > *Sent:* Monday, October 19, 2009 1:55 PM > *To:* ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com > *Subject:* [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 10A - priority 88 > > > > under policy-map LLQ-BR1 it has priority 88 for 2 allowing calls in RSVP > enabled infa. > > > > I am not able to follow the calculation (24x2)+40 =88 > > > > Anyone can shed some light on this please. > > >
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
