I use a newsgroup reader at home and the web forum at work.... either way I get the full threads and can send posts.... =) If you see a post with [EMAIL PROTECTED], that's one that I posted via the web. All the rest (like this one) are posted via Outlook Express.
If you reply to a post via the web, by default it won't quote the message your replying (but you can click a button to quote the message so you can do inline comments, etc). Back to RTP..... Although voice traffic is small (smaller than most other traffic), I still can't think of one good reason to limit it (especially when moving from voice to video). 2Mbps is alot of compressed voice streams, but even using G.729 (8Kbps not counting overhead), you're only talking about 8 T1 (equivalent) voice trunks. I know that sounds like alot, but consider this situation: We have locations in 6 different states, which all connect to the WAN core via ATM (the PVCs comes into our core via an OC-12). We want to run as many as 3 T1 voice trunks between PBX systems spread out in the city (where the core is), and then one to each of the other states..... That's 8 T1 trunks. Granted, it's very unlikely that all 24 channels on each trunk would be used at once, but if that were to happen, we could potentially be pushing the 2Mbps limit on our OC-12 (that limit would only apply to outgoing, and even tho there are no trunks terminating in the building/equipment where the WAN core is, all of the voice trunks have to pass through in/out of our OC-12 to get to any other site in the WAN). I could understand if they put a limit in percentage of bandwidth, but still a hard limit of 2Mbps on *any* physical interface (which, in our case is a 622Mbps OC-12), that's only 0.32% of the bandwidth we can use for RTP priority..... using G.729 we can get by with what we want now, but any future expansion of the voice traffic would require a separate DS-3/OC-3 connection to the core just to be sure we have the priority we need.... (well, actually before going to that extreme, I'd probably implement a simple priority queue with any RTP traffic going into the high queue and all other in the normal queue).... Oh well..... this is the fun stuff that drew me into networking in the first place =) Mike W. "Priscilla Oppenheimer" wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Limiting the bandwidth for RTP makes sense for voice, which uses very > little bandwidth. Maybe that's what the developers of the command had in > mind, rather than video. 2 Mbps would be a lot of compressed voice streams. > Depending on the CODEC, a single voice stream might just require 8 Kbps. 2 > Mbps would support something like 250 simultaneous calls in that case. > > I read group study with e-mail. I don't know how other people are doing it > and if perhaps they somehow see the rest of this thread with the original > messages. I just see replies sometimes and the connectionless, stateless > nature of the discussion is hard to follow . I don't know if the original > question had to do with voice or video. > > How are you guys participating in this list, anyway? Why do we e-mail > participants just see replies. This didn't use to be the case. Sorry if > that's a clueless question, but I truly am mystified. :-) > > Priscilla > > At 11:51 PM 4/25/02, Michael L. Williams wrote: > >Yeah.... and I've tried the command on interface with bandwidth ranging from > >10Mbps (Ethernet), to 40Mbps (ATM) to 100Mbps (FastEthernet) and it still > >insists on limiting the 'bandwidth' parameter to 0-2000Kbps...... And > >you're correct, I also thought using IP RTP Priority was a 'one-liner' that > >you let you avoid fancy queueing, but apparently only if you don't need more > >than 2Mbps on a given physical interface... geez... > > > >Mike W. > > > >"Anthony Pace" wrote in message > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > > I was under the same impression that "IP RTP PRIORITY" was a "one-liner" > > > which got you out from under having to do alot of fancy Queing if all you > > > needed was the ability to prioritize voice or video. Can you change the > > > bandwidth with the "bandwidth" configuration command to raise the RTP > > > ceiling? The quieng question is a good one, because, allthough queing is > > > supposed to be applied to a phisical interface, you can apply quing in a > > > frame-relay class-map, and different maps can be applied to different > > > interfaces. > > > > > > Anthony Pace > ________________________ > > Priscilla Oppenheimer > http://www.priscilla.com Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=42695&t=42555 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
