Priscilla, Your not alone. I also read the messages of this list via e-mail. Kinda gets crazy sometimes, because I trie to read 99% of the messages.
When the messages come down, I'll sometimes get the messages in a wierd order that doesn't seem chronological, but yet the time stamps are in order. Prolly something to do with the Server/Moderator :) Have a great weekend. Mark -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Priscilla Oppenheimer Sent: Friday, April 26, 2002 12:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: IP RTP Priority command [7:42555] 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=42732&t=42555 -------------------------------------------------- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
