The problem is that we are doing VoIP over the link using Cisco FXO and FXS ports and People are complaining about Voice breaking up, like a bad cell phone call. I heard it myself, it sounds good but sometimes breaks up.The routers are running g.729 and use the Wireless link. I have looked into the Configuration side on the Routers, and have done QoS as well on Routers, but still these issues. I did a MOS score calculation and it was 4.03 which is " Acceptable" which means that the call quality should be good, but, it is not. Then I checked the Ethernet Interface counters, and saw collisions increasing rapidly, and hence the question.
Thanks, neil ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > neil K wrote: > > > > The Cisco bridge operates in Half-duplex and that is why > > half-duplex. The > > Router is a Cisco 1751 with WIC-1ENET, which is connected to > > the Wireless > > Bridge. > > I checked with the "output Interpreter" on CCO and it said the > > collisions > > are more than 0.53 much higher than 0.1 normal rate. > > That doesn't sound like a serious problem. > > > Here's the output of sh interfaces e 0/0 > > > > Ethernet0/0 is up, line protocol is up > > Hardware is PQUICC Ethernet, address is 0004.dd0d.5502 (bia > > 0004.dd0d.5502) > > Internet address is 172.20.1.2/24 > > MTU 1500 bytes, BW 10000 Kbit, DLY 1000 usec, > > reliability 255/255, txload 1/255, rxload 1/255 > > Encapsulation ARPA, loopback not set > > Keepalive set (10 sec) > > Half-duplex, 10BaseT > > ARP type: ARPA, ARP Timeout 04:00:00 > > Last input 00:00:00, output 00:00:00, output hang never > > Last clearing of "show interface" counters 3d20h > > Input queue: 0/75/0/0 (size/max/drops/flushes); Total output > > drops: 0 > > Queueing strategy: weighted fair > > Output queue: 0/1000/64/0 (size/max total/threshold/drops) > > Conversations 0/5/256 (active/max active/max total) > > Reserved Conversations 0/0 (allocated/max allocated) > > Available Bandwidth 7200 kilobits/sec > > 5 minute input rate 53000 bits/sec, 13 packets/sec > > 5 minute output rate 8000 bits/sec, 13 packets/sec > > 4528216 packets input, 642790340 bytes, 0 no buffer > > Received 176451 broadcasts, 0 runts, 0 giants, 0 throttles > > 0 input errors, 0 CRC, 0 frame, 0 overrun, 0 ignored > > 0 input packets with dribble condition detected > > 6314935 packets output, 279254727 bytes, 0 underruns > > 59281 output errors, 86548 collisions, 0 interface resets > > 86548 divided by 6314935 is about 1%. That's not a big deal. I know Cisco > says that the threshold is 0.1%, but they just made that number up. There's > no exact number where you have to be concerned, and most experts have said > for years that Cisco's 0.1% is extremely low. They just want to sell you > switches! :-) > > Collisions are a normal part of Ethernet's media access control method. They > go up with load as 2 or more stations try to send simultaneously. > > You aren't seeing a high load now, but the load statistic is for the last > five minutes. If you want to try to correlate load with collisions, you > should clear the counters and keep an eye on the statistics. > > The nefarious 59281 output errors are curious. It's supposed to be a total > of all the other output errors and I would think it would count the > collisions, but Cisco isn't very clear about this. Why wouldn't they count > all the collisions? Or maybe the output errors are different from the > collisions, but I don't know what else they would be. Cisco just says that > output errors are a cumulation of the other errors and that they may not add > up to the others because a frame could have more than one error, which > doesn't apply to your situation. > > > 0 babbles, 0 late collision, 0 deferred > > 0 deferred is a good sign, as are all those other 0 error counts. > > I don't think you really have a problem. What gave you concern? I guess the > collisions went up. But that would be normal if they went up at the same > time as both ends of the interface were trying to send a lot of traffic. > > By the way, what does the other end say about errors? (i.e. the wireless > bridge interface, can it show you some statistics?) > > What else did Cisco's Output Interpreter have to say about the statistics? > Can you copy and paste its report? It could help us help you. > > Are users complaining? If not, I would say just to use the data you have > gathered as baseline data, but not as data that causes any troubleshooting > action. > > If users are complaining, then use the troubleshooting method called "swap > 'til you drop." Change the cable, the interfaces, etc. But my guess is that > nothing is wrong. Your interface looks extremely healthy. > > Priscilla > > > > 0 lost carrier, 0 no carrier > > 0 output buffer failures, 0 output buffers swapped out > > > > Thanks, > > > > neil > > > > > > ""Priscilla Oppenheimer"" wrote in > > message > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Collisions go up normally with load. What is the load? Could > > something > > else > > > (an attack or trojan horse or just excitement about your > > terrific content) > > > have caused the load to go way up? > > > > > > Cisco says that no more than 0.1 percent of frames should > > experience > > > collisions. How many frames have there been in the time that > > the > > collisions > > > went up? How does that compare to your baseline? > > > > > > By the way, why do you have the interfaces set to half > > duplex? Why don't > > you > > > set them them to full since it's a point-to-point link? > > > > > > Priscilla > > > > > > neil K wrote: > > > > > > > > One of my Cisco router's Ethernet interface connected to a > > > > Cisco Wireless > > > > Bridges has the interface collisions counter increasing > > > > rapidly. Over a > > > > period of 48 hrs the collision counter was 60,000 and the > > > > output error > > > > counter was more than 40000. Both the Ethernet interface on > > the > > > > router and > > > > the Cisco Wireless bridge are set to 10/Half-duplex. > > > > There is nothing in between the bridge and the Router > > Ethernet, > > > > connected by > > > > a cross-over cable. What could be causing this. > > > > > > > > Any comments, > > > > > > > > neil Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=71288&t=71176 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
