Can you elaborate on this a little? I mean LLQ is basically PQ-CBWFQ, and
offers a CBR priority queue for the voice to use. With CBWFQ your voice
traffic is going to be weighted based on class, just like other traffic,
and even in a best case scenerio could still get some packet trains
causing unpredicatable latency..............or are you recommending
CBWFQ solely based on bugs in LLQ?
Thanks,
Brian
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001, Will wrote:
> Yes, CBWFQ is the way to go....
>
> ""Tony Medeiros"" wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The Cisco AVVID guru's just told me to bail on LLQ and go to CBWFQ
> instead.
> > Problems with code or just works better according to them.
> > Tony
> > #6172
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael L. Williams
> > To:
> > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 8:56 AM
> > Subject: Re: VoIP QoS [7:6586]
> >
> >
> > > I thought 768Kbps was the minimum you needed NOT to use LFI....... at
> > > 768Kbps, it takes ~15ms for a 1500byte frame to be put on the line. So
> > even
> > > if a couple 1500-byte ethernet frames came between your voice frames,
it
> > > would wouldn't be too bad....... but depending on the queuing method,
> even
> > > at 768Kbps, the regular ethernet traffic could indeed cause a
> > problem.......
> > > you could use a priority queue to make sure that all the voice traffic
> > > *always* goes through before any of the other traffic, but from what I
> > > understand the LLQ is much better for these purposes.
> > >
> > > Mike W.
> > >
> > > "Brian" wrote in message
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > What codec are you using? If the speed of the link is T1 or less I
> > would
> > > > definitly do LFI. Otherwise large packets (1500 bytes) could be
> starving
> > > > the voice from the minimum latency that it needs.
> > > >
> > > > Brian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 31 May 2001, Amit Gupta wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Everybody,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have configured the following parameters on the
> > > > > serial interface for VoIP.The quality of the calls is
> > > > > not very good during working hours you can feel some
> > > > > delay/small interruptions while using it.
> > > > >
> > > > > interface serial 0
> > > > > ip tcp header-compression iphc-format
> > > > > no ip mroute-cache
> > > > > no fair-queue
> > > > > ip rtp header-compression iphc-format
> > > > > ip rtp priority 16384 16383 64
> > > > >
> > > > > Could anybody suggest any other alternative to improve
> > > > > the quality.
> > > > > Will removing the compression help ?
> > > > > Do I need to have something like Link Fragmentation
> > > > > and Interleaving configured.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > Amit
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________________________
> > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > > > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
> > > > > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> > > > I'm buying / selling used CISCO gear!!
> > > > email me for a quote
> > > >
> > > > Brian Feeny,CCDP,CCNP+VAS Scarlett Parria
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > 318-213-4709 318-213-4701
> > > >
> > > > Netjam, LLC http://www.netjam.net
> > > > 333 Texas St. VISA/MC/AMEX/COD
> > > > Suite 1401 30 day warranty
> > > > Shreveport, LA 71101 Cisco Channel Partner
> > > > toll free: 866-2NETJAM
> > > > phone: 318-212-0245
> > > > fax: 318-212-0246
I'm buying / selling used CISCO gear!!
email me for a quote
Brian Feeny,CCDP,CCNP+VAS Scarlett Parria
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
318-213-4709 318-213-4701
Netjam, LLC http://www.netjam.net
333 Texas St. VISA/MC/AMEX/COD
Suite 1401 30 day warranty
Shreveport, LA 71101 Cisco Channel Partner
toll free: 866-2NETJAM
phone: 318-212-0245
fax: 318-212-0246
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=7297&t=6586
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
