Its seems to me(I am still investigating all the different methods) that
with CBWFQ, I can be much more grannular on what traffic and how to queue
it. For instance, I can weight all the different types of traffic needed
for an AVVID deployment, H.323. MGCP, Skinny and the like, not just RTP.
I have been playing with QDM and for once Cisco has come up with a usefull
gui tool that works !!! I can set up a nice CBWFQ scheme real easy.
There are so many ways of doing this that it just makes me mad !!! Throw in
the different frame relay methods of queuing and it gets way worse. The are
so many commands doing nearly the same thing that I am just left to try them
all and see what works best. I wish Cisco would deceide on a scheme for
AVVID stuff and stick with it.
So to answer your question. No I don't know from expierence which one is
best, But I will after a few deployments. I just repeated what was told to
me by a fairly realable Cisco SE who knows their stuff. This is an area
that will require much learning for me and is the reason I deceided that IP
telephoney will be my speciality, very challanging !!!
The Layer 2 QOS stuff is another thing entirely !! VACL's and trusts and
QOS maps , WOW !!
Good luck to all of us and I'll keep sharing what I learn in this field.
Tony M.
#6172
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: VoIP QoS [7:6586]
> 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=7351&t=6586
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
