Nathan, - We prioritize signaling because if one starts to lose OPTIONS messages for example the call will be torn down.
- How can I run that without an ACL? - Nothing useful in the logs and nothing gets printed to console. We need to have different QoS maps for custom jobs so applying a map just to the main ATM interface isn't doable. It has to be applied to the VC since we're using CBWFQ: router(config-subif)# service-policy output voice CBWFQ : Not supported on subinterfaces I checked Ciscos site and this policy should be fine on the VC. Here's the old policy I was using: policy-map voice class voice-signaling bandwidth percent 5 class voice-traffic priority percent 70 class class-default fair-queue random-detect We were matching on mostly IP/ports with the old one. Also, we aren't going over the 75% limit of reserved bandwidth on the interface so setting max-reserved-bandwidth 99 did not help. Thanks, Jason Nathan wrote: > On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Jason Berenson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Greetings, >> >> I've recently simplified QoS on our edge routers. Here's what we're using: >> >> class-map match-any Core_Voice_Signaling >> match access-group name Core_Voice_Signaling >> class-map match-any Core_Voice_RTP >> match access-group name Core_Voice_RTP >> >> policy-map voice >> class Core_Voice_Signaling >> bandwidth percent 5 >> class Core_Voice_RTP >> priority percent 70 >> class class-default >> fair-queue >> random-detect dscp-based >> >> ip access-list extended Core_Voice_RTP >> remark DSCP 24 = TOS 3 >> permit udp any any dscp cs3 >> remark DSCP ef >> permit udp any any dscp ef >> > > You could run that without any access-list. I expect/hope that would > be less resource-intensive. > > >> ip access-list extended Core_Voice_Signaling >> remark SIP Signalling >> permit udp any any eq 5060 >> permit tcp any any eq 5061 >> > > That does need an access-list though. Pity. Personally I don't do it, > either signalling is in the AF class, or it piggybacks on the EF > class, or it doesn't get prioritized. Is there anyone who can give an > example of voice problems experienced when signaling packets get > delayed or even lost? > > >> For some reason when I apply 'voice' to an ATM sub-interface it doesn't >> seem to show up under the show policy-map interface command. >> > > Isn't there something in the logs? I don't know what log-level it is, > I usually run debugging, and when a service-policy is not applied > there is is never any error in the session like there would be if > there was a syntax error, but always something useful in the logs. > Turn on "terminal monitor" . . . > > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/