Michael, My understanding was older CUCM servers ( 4.x and early 5.x ) sent signalling out at AF31, also I thought I remembered something about CIPC not sending traffic out with right markings. I was trying to do a "catch all" to match any type of signaling be it either CS3 or AF31.
And the police statement I have verified on my 2811 running 12.4(22) T2 ( Same as v3 lab last month ). So I believe this to be correct. What exactly did you mean by checking it to meet "ONLY" my requirements? The exceed action would remark traffic above 32k down to 8k correct? Thanks again, Alex 2009/11/11 Michael Ciarfello <mciarfe...@iplogic.com> > That's looking better. Check your policed-dscp line to ONLY meet your > requirements. > > Check the command reference and 3750 Switch COnfiguration guide - QoS > chapter on that police command. I haven't looked at that or remember if it's > correct. > > Pay attention to what Farkas said. Look at other documents to find the > source of that. Maybe the document I mentioned above on what he is saying > is in there. > > Why CS3 and AF31? If you have a home lab or a partial home lab, use a > sniffer and sniff around. Let us know what you find. > ------------------------------ > *From:* ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com [ > ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com] On Behalf Of Alex Hannah [ > alex.han...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 11, 2009 6:56 PM > *To:* Farkas Péter > *Cc:* ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com > > *Subject:* Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] 3750 QoS Question > > Michael and Farkas, > > Okay, I have thought about what you mentioned. Here is my revised > approach. Let me know what you think about this way: > > ! > mls qos map policed-dscp 0 24 to 8 > mls qos map cos-dscp 0 8 16 24 32 46 48 56 > mls qos > ! > ! > class-map match-any SCCP-Traffic > match ip dscp cs3 af31 > ! > ! > policy-map POLICE-MAP > class SCCP-Traffic > police 320000 8000 exceed-action policed-dscp-transmit > set dscp cs3 > ! > ! > interface FastEthernet0/6 > service-policy input POLICE-MAP > ! > > What is the signifigance of matching both ip dscp cs3 af31? Since I have > match-any will it match on both? New CUCM 7.x servers should send SCCP out > at cs3 correct? > > Thanks, > > Alex > > > 2009/11/11 "Farkas Péter" <wormh...@sch.bme.hu> > >> AutoQoS cannot be configured until service-policy is attached to the >> interface so you cannot use it for correction. Also, AutoQos does not work >> on Eth. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Michael Ciarfello <mciarfe...@iplogic.com> >> Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:56 pm >> Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] 3750 QoS Question >> To: Alex Hannah <alex.han...@gmail.com>, "ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com" >> <ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com> >> >> >> > Here are some hints for you to research: >> > >> > I believe there is an error in one of the class-maps. See if you can >> find it or agree. >> > >> > I believe you have too much extra stuff configured, let’s eliminate the >> unneeded stuff. >> > >> > How about use match IP protocol instead of access-lists? >> > >> > Are you sure your access-list is correct for the inbound / outbound >> traffic you have? >> > >> > I think the data vlan people are going to be pissed and complain about >> slowness. I know it’s >> > a lab. I believe you can get the entire config down to a much simplier >> 10-15 lines instead of >> > all the stuff you have. >> > >> > From: ccie_voice-boun...@onlinestudylist.com [ On Behalf Of Alex >> Hannah >> > Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 2:41 PM >> > To: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com >> > Subject: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] 3750 QoS Question >> > >> > Hello everyone. >> > >> > I am attempting to create the following QoS policy on a 3750 port with >> an IP Phone plugged in >> > behind it. >> > >> > The policy will police signalling ( SCCP ) 32k down to 8k and remark to >> DSCP 8. I have read >> > through most of the SRND guide for the 3750, the model I am following is >> the: >> > >> > 2970/3560/3750–Conditionally-Trusted IP Phone + PC + Scavenger (Basic) >> Model Configuration on >> > page 105 of the 3.3 QoS SRND. >> > >> > Can anyone validate my work below and let me know if you think this >> meets those requirements? >> > Also, in this scenerio, Auto Qos would not need to be applied over top >> of it correct? >> > >> > mls qos map cos-dscp 0 8 16 24 32 46 48 56 >> > mls qos map policed-dscp 0 24 to 8 >> > >> > class-map match-all VVLAN-VOICE >> > !Was in SRND but not using match access-group name VVLAN-VOICE >> > match ip dscp ef >> > >> > class-map match-all VVLAN-CALL-SIGNALING >> > !Was in SRND but not using match access-group name >> VVLAN-CALL-SIGNALLING >> > match ip dscp cs3 af31 >> > >> > class-map match-all VVLAN-ANY >> > match access-group name VVLAN-ANY >> > >> > 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 >> > class VVLAN-ANY >> > set ip dscp 0 >> > police 32000 8000 >> > exceed-action policed-dscp-transmit >> > >> > class class-default >> > set ip dscp 0 >> > police 5000000 8000 >> > exceed-action policed-dscp-transmit >> > >> > interface FastEthernet0/1 >> > service-policy input IPPHONE+PC-BASIC >> > >> > ip access list extended VVLAN-VOICE >> > permit udp x.x.x.x 0.0.0.255 any range 16384 32767 >> > >> > ip access list extended VVLAN-CALL-SIGNALING >> > permit tcp x.x.x.x 0.0.0.255 any range 2000 2002 >> > >> > ip access list extended VVLAN-ANY >> > permit ip x.x.x.x 0.0.0.255 any >> > >> > >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Alex >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, >> please visit www.ipexpert.com >> > >
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
