Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[Kurt Mai (kurmai)]

I did a packet capture on the PC running CUPC to see what kind of messages are 
sent between CUPC and CUPS. This question is asking to marking inbound traffic 
from CUPS to CUPC which the proctor considers as "signaling". Since the inbound 
port also connects to CUCM and CUC which potentially will also communicate with 
CUPS, we'll have to filter them out, as well as traffic from CUPS to CUPC 
that's NOT considered as "signaling".

Let's take a look at what CUPS considers as signaling. CUPS will by default 
mark certain packets with DSCP value CS3. In the packet capture, we see the 
following types of traffic between CUPS and CUPC:


A.  CUPS[5060] --> CUPC[random port]

B.  CUPS[random port] --> CUPC[500XX] (5-50067 for SIP presence)

C.  CUPS[443] --> CUPC[random port]

That's it. Interestingly, only traffic A and B are marked by default as CS3, C 
is left as 0. So we have two options here, one is to mark everything between 
CUPS and CUPC as CS3, then police; the other is to "preserve" the CS3 markings 
from CUPS and only police those. Which approach is what proctor wants I don't 
know. Personally I tend to believe in the second approach. So to do that, you 
can use an access list to match both IP addresses and DSCP:

Access-list 101 permit ip host CUPS-IP-ADDRESS host CUPC-IP-ADDRESS dscp CS3

Then assign it to class-map:

class-map match-all signal
  match access-group 101 /*you can only have one match command per class, and 
you can't nest them through multiple policy-maps either*/

policy-map markpresence
class signal
police 32000 8000 exceed-action policed-dscp-transmit
   set dscp cs3

mls qos map policed-dscp 24 to 8

And finally apply to interface:

Int fa1/0/4
  Service-policy in markpresence


___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[san r]

" If Cisco Unified Personal Communicator is configured for Desk Phone mode,
a connection is established with the CTI Manager of Unified CM for phone
control. "

Looks like CTI port needs to be consider only if the CUPC configured in
deskphone mode.

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:05 PM, san r  wrote:

> Is it something like SIP/SIMPLE  & SOAP towards Presence server and
> SIP/SIMPLE & CTI/QBE towards CUCM ?
>
> 2 ACL - one to CUPS and other to CUCM. Together can we call it as
> 'signalling' from presence communicator?
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/srnd/7x/presence.html --  
> Figure 22-1 Cisco Unified Presence Components
>
>
> http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Cisco_Unified_Presence,_Release_7.x_--_About_the_Interfaces_with_Cisco_Unified_Communications_Manager#About_the_Interfaces_with_Cisco_Unified_Communications_Manager
>
> Figure: Cisco Unified Presence Basic Deployment
>
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Brian Turner wrote:
>
>> I think you guys are over thinking it maybe.  Isn't all traffic from the
>> CUPC server Signaling traffic?  The CUPC server doesn't really do anything
>> but "Signaling"
>>
>> Media traffic goes from enpoint to endpoint, or endpoint to MTP etc.  All
>> other voice traffic is typically considered signaling.
>>
>> So an ACL that just matched all traffic to / from the CUPC server IP
>> address would include signaling traffic for the CUPC server and little else.
>>
>> I didn't see the earlier email concerning the wording of the question, so
>> this is a stab in the dark.
>>
>> Brian S Turner CCIE 6145
>>
>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:39 AM, san r  wrote:
>>
>>> Release Notes for Cisco Unified Personal Communicator Release 7.0
>>> has
>>> got all inbound & outbound port usage for CUPC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cupc/7_0/english/release/notes/ol15710.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 5:27 PM, san r  wrote:
>>>
 I think we will need to consider the citi port number too
  On May 13, 2012 2:57 PM, "steven moran"  wrote:

>  I've been doing some work on this topic and have moved away from my
> original thoughts which were along the same lines as originally posted by
> Nazeer and a few others .  Here are some recent thoughts on the subject
>
> the question is not particularly well worded, we can't really
> influence the traffic from the CUPC client to the server by applying 
> policy
> on the server port.  What we can do is control what the switch port does
> with packets from the CUPS server to the clients by classifying and
> applying an input ploicy on the server port.  I went back to the presence
> section in the CUCM srnd - the only traffic between CUPC and CUPS seems be
> 5060 for sip/simple and  443 for SOAP,  this was sort of backed up by the
> information in the CUPC 7.1 release.  The release notes also mention that
> ports 16384-16424 are used for TFTP - but this would not be classed as
> signalling.  Since there are other servers on the port any access list
> would need to specifiy the server IP address.  If you wanted to make it
> really specific you could also specify the destination address of the CUPC
> clients as well.  Finally by putting bidirectional access lists (any any 
> eq
> and any eq any) you may loose the points as it might appear you are 
> hedging
> your bets and do not know how directional QoS works.  Also we are asked to
> guarantee 32k for signalling traffic if we put non signalling traffic into
> this policy we are not achieving the requirements.
>
> These statements are not facts, just my current opinion based on the
> last bits of documentation read and I am happy to discuss.
> Best regards.
> Steve
>
> ___
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
> please visit www.ipexpert.com
>
> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com 
>

>>>
>>> ___
>>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
>>> please visit www.ipexpert.com
>>>
>>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>>>
>>
>>
>
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[san r]

Is it something like SIP/SIMPLE  & SOAP towards Presence server and
SIP/SIMPLE & CTI/QBE towards CUCM ?

2 ACL - one to CUPS and other to CUCM. Together can we call it as
'signalling' from presence communicator?

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/srnd/7x/presence.html
--  Figure 22-1 Cisco Unified Presence Components


http://docwiki.cisco.com/wiki/Cisco_Unified_Presence,_Release_7.x_--_About_the_Interfaces_with_Cisco_Unified_Communications_Manager#About_the_Interfaces_with_Cisco_Unified_Communications_Manager

Figure: Cisco Unified Presence Basic Deployment


On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Brian Turner wrote:

> I think you guys are over thinking it maybe.  Isn't all traffic from the
> CUPC server Signaling traffic?  The CUPC server doesn't really do anything
> but "Signaling"
>
> Media traffic goes from enpoint to endpoint, or endpoint to MTP etc.  All
> other voice traffic is typically considered signaling.
>
> So an ACL that just matched all traffic to / from the CUPC server IP
> address would include signaling traffic for the CUPC server and little else.
>
> I didn't see the earlier email concerning the wording of the question, so
> this is a stab in the dark.
>
> Brian S Turner CCIE 6145
>
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:39 AM, san r  wrote:
>
>> Release Notes for Cisco Unified Personal Communicator Release 7.0
>> has
>> got all inbound & outbound port usage for CUPC
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cupc/7_0/english/release/notes/ol15710.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 5:27 PM, san r  wrote:
>>
>>> I think we will need to consider the citi port number too
>>>  On May 13, 2012 2:57 PM, "steven moran"  wrote:
>>>
  I've been doing some work on this topic and have moved away from my
 original thoughts which were along the same lines as originally posted by
 Nazeer and a few others .  Here are some recent thoughts on the subject

 the question is not particularly well worded, we can't really influence
 the traffic from the CUPC client to the server by applying policy on the
 server port.  What we can do is control what the switch port does with
 packets from the CUPS server to the clients by classifying and applying an
 input ploicy on the server port.  I went back to the presence section in
 the CUCM srnd - the only traffic between CUPC and CUPS seems be 5060
 for sip/simple and  443 for SOAP,  this was sort of backed up by the
 information in the CUPC 7.1 release.  The release notes also mention that
 ports 16384-16424 are used for TFTP - but this would not be classed as
 signalling.  Since there are other servers on the port any access list
 would need to specifiy the server IP address.  If you wanted to make it
 really specific you could also specify the destination address of the CUPC
 clients as well.  Finally by putting bidirectional access lists (any any eq
 and any eq any) you may loose the points as it might appear you are hedging
 your bets and do not know how directional QoS works.  Also we are asked to
 guarantee 32k for signalling traffic if we put non signalling traffic into
 this policy we are not achieving the requirements.

 These statements are not facts, just my current opinion based on the
 last bits of documentation read and I am happy to discuss.
 Best regards.
 Steve

 ___
 For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
 please visit www.ipexpert.com

 Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
 www.PlatinumPlacement.com 

>>>
>>
>> ___
>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
>> visit www.ipexpert.com
>>
>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>>
>
>
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[san r]

If NDA is strict. Why we have lab work books. Most of them are claiming
it's 'exactly ' as in lab. Even everyone is using the name CCIE - I do
believe its 'Cisco ' certified internetwork expert
On May 15, 2012 4:07 PM, "Ken Wyan"  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Didn't you forget cisco NDA & discuss exam questions like this? (Cisco
> seems given a never-ending exercise to NDA violators)
>
> You can't conclude answers this way & don't hope to pass first attempt or
> if cisco gives such questions.
>
> Just try again you"ll pass next time or a in a subsequent attempt if you
> prepared very well using IPExpert material.
>
> Thats only I can say.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Kevin Spicer wrote:
>
>> But cucm and cup both run on the same VMWare server so will use the
>> internal vswitch to communicate only traffic to the clients will traverse
>> the switch port.
>>
>> On 15 May 2012 03:41, "steven moran"  wrote:
>>
>>>  Whilst in some aspects you are right in that the CUPS server is really
>>> only involved in signalling - the question requires a guarantee of 32k for
>>> signal traffic between CUPC and CUPS (that's how I read it)  as we are only
>>> instructed to put a policy of the CUPS server port, then we have to be
>>> careful not to put traffic between the CUPS and CUCM into the same policy
>>> as above as this would impact of the bandwidth allocated.  At the end of
>>> the day it is a badly worded question.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> ___
>>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
>>> please visit www.ipexpert.com
>>>
>>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com 
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
>> visit www.ipexpert.com
>>
>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com 
>>
>
>
> ___
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
> visit www.ipexpert.com
>
> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[Ken Wyan]

Hi Steve,

If this was from another vendor lab , isn't it more approriate to discuss
it in that domain?

Frankly speaking , I had to attempt the lab several times to pass it. I
adviced you from my experience & don't want to recommend or critisize any
vendor.

Your Last Question
"Are you saying that this is similar to an actual exam question?"

I am unable to answer your question without braking NDA & apologize for
that.

Good Luck next time !



On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:14 PM, steven moran  wrote:

> Ken, appreciate the wanring - but not sure what this has to do with Cisco
> NDA, we were discussing the Lab7 ccievoicelabs question as was evident in
> both the question title and my comments about it being a poorly worded
> question.  Are you saying that this is similar to an actual exam question?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Steve
>
>  On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Ken Wyan  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Didn't you forget cisco NDA & discuss exam questions like this? (Cisco
>> seems given a never-ending exercise to NDA violators)
>>
>> You can't conclude answers this way & don't hope to pass first attempt or
>> if cisco gives such questions.
>>
>> Just try again you"ll pass next time or a in a subsequent attempt if you
>> prepared very well using IPExpert material.
>>
>> Thats only I can say.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Kevin Spicer 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But cucm and cup both run on the same VMWare server so will use the
>>> internal vswitch to communicate only traffic to the clients will traverse
>>> the switch port.
>>>
>>> On 15 May 2012 03:41, "steven moran"  wrote:
>>>
  Whilst in some aspects you are right in that the CUPS server is
 really only involved in signalling - the question requires a guarantee of
 32k for signal traffic between CUPC and CUPS (that's how I read it)  as we
 are only instructed to put a policy of the CUPS server port, then we have
 to be careful not to put traffic between the CUPS and CUCM into the same
 policy as above as this would impact of the bandwidth allocated.  At the
 end of the day it is a badly worded question.

 Steve

 ___
 For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
 please visit www.ipexpert.com

 Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
 www.PlatinumPlacement.com 

>>>
>>> ___
>>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
>>> please visit www.ipexpert.com
>>>
>>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com 
>>>
>>>
>>
>
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[steven moran]

Ken, appreciate the wanring - but not sure what this has to do with Cisco
NDA, we were discussing the Lab7 ccievoicelabs question as was evident in
both the question title and my comments about it being a poorly worded
question.  Are you saying that this is similar to an actual exam question?

Best regards,

Steve

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:19 PM, Ken Wyan  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Didn't you forget cisco NDA & discuss exam questions like this? (Cisco
> seems given a never-ending exercise to NDA violators)
>
> You can't conclude answers this way & don't hope to pass first attempt or
> if cisco gives such questions.
>
> Just try again you"ll pass next time or a in a subsequent attempt if you
> prepared very well using IPExpert material.
>
> Thats only I can say.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Kevin Spicer wrote:
>
>> But cucm and cup both run on the same VMWare server so will use the
>> internal vswitch to communicate only traffic to the clients will traverse
>> the switch port.
>>
>> On 15 May 2012 03:41, "steven moran"  wrote:
>>
>>>  Whilst in some aspects you are right in that the CUPS server is really
>>> only involved in signalling - the question requires a guarantee of 32k for
>>> signal traffic between CUPC and CUPS (that's how I read it)  as we are only
>>> instructed to put a policy of the CUPS server port, then we have to be
>>> careful not to put traffic between the CUPS and CUCM into the same policy
>>> as above as this would impact of the bandwidth allocated.  At the end of
>>> the day it is a badly worded question.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> ___
>>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
>>> please visit www.ipexpert.com
>>>
>>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com 
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
>> visit www.ipexpert.com
>>
>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com 
>>
>>
>
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[Ken Wyan]

Hi,

Didn't you forget cisco NDA & discuss exam questions like this? (Cisco
seems given a never-ending exercise to NDA violators)

You can't conclude answers this way & don't hope to pass first attempt or
if cisco gives such questions.

Just try again you"ll pass next time or a in a subsequent attempt if you
prepared very well using IPExpert material.

Thats only I can say.

Thanks



On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 12:21 PM, Kevin Spicer wrote:

> But cucm and cup both run on the same VMWare server so will use the
> internal vswitch to communicate only traffic to the clients will traverse
> the switch port.
>
> On 15 May 2012 03:41, "steven moran"  wrote:
>
>>  Whilst in some aspects you are right in that the CUPS server is really
>> only involved in signalling - the question requires a guarantee of 32k for
>> signal traffic between CUPC and CUPS (that's how I read it)  as we are only
>> instructed to put a policy of the CUPS server port, then we have to be
>> careful not to put traffic between the CUPS and CUCM into the same policy
>> as above as this would impact of the bandwidth allocated.  At the end of
>> the day it is a badly worded question.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> ___
>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
>> visit www.ipexpert.com
>>
>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com 
>>
>
> ___
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
> visit www.ipexpert.com
>
> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com 
>
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[Kevin Spicer]

But cucm and cup both run on the same VMWare server so will use the
internal vswitch to communicate only traffic to the clients will traverse
the switch port.

On 15 May 2012 03:41, "steven moran"  wrote:

> Whilst in some aspects you are right in that the CUPS server is really
> only involved in signalling - the question requires a guarantee of 32k for
> signal traffic between CUPC and CUPS (that's how I read it)  as we are only
> instructed to put a policy of the CUPS server port, then we have to be
> careful not to put traffic between the CUPS and CUCM into the same policy
> as above as this would impact of the bandwidth allocated.  At the end of
> the day it is a badly worded question.
>
> Steve
>
> ___
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
> visit www.ipexpert.com
>
> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

[OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[steven moran]

Whilst in some aspects you are right in that the CUPS server is really only
involved in signalling - the question requires a guarantee of 32k for
signal traffic between CUPC and CUPS (that's how I read it)  as we are only
instructed to put a policy of the CUPS server port, then we have to be
careful not to put traffic between the CUPS and CUCM into the same policy
as above as this would impact of the bandwidth allocated.  At the end of
the day it is a badly worded question.

Steve
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[Abbas.F]

Hi Team,

Please remove my  maid id abbas_3...@yahoo.com from your group.. i donot want 
to receive mails from your group

 
Regards,
F.Abbas B.E,MBA,
9790126906



 From: Juan Lopez 
To: Ken Wyan  
Cc: ccie_voice@onlinestudylist.com; Nazeer rahiman  
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 3:33 PM
Subject: Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS
 

not sure about that Ken.
If we use auto qos on a switch, it applies a service policy in combination with 
mls qos statements on the same port.
 
These mls qos statements I believe are used for anything not mathching the 
service policy
 
cheers,
Juan


2012/5/14 Ken Wyan 

If we specify a service-policy ,then mls qos trust commands won't have any 
effect. Then you have to consider rtp traffic in ACL.
> 
> 
>
>On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:32 PM, san r  wrote:
>
>Since they specifically asked for 'CUPC Signalling ' I don't think you need to 
>mark the RTP traffic 
>>On May 13, 2012 11:53 AM, "Nazeer rahiman"  wrote:
>>
>>For LAN QoS I got below question
>>>All servers are connected (running on vmware) to SW int G 1/0/4. CUPC is 
>>>running in UCCX and test pc.
>>>They asked to configure one in softphone mode other one is desktop mode. 
>>>also configre voice mail on both clients
>>>QoS question was - In Gig 1/0/4 , make sure all incoming CUPC signaling 
>>>traffic to mark CS3 and gurantee 32k BW. anythung
>>>exess should be mark down to DSCP 8 and retransmit.
>>>My ans was -
>>>mls qos
>>>mls qos map cos-dscp 0 8 16 24 32 46 48 56
>>>mls qos map policed-dscp 24 26 to 8
>>>
>>>ip access-list extended voice-rtp
>>>permit udp any any range 16384 32767
>>>ip access-list extended cupc-sig
>>>permit tcp any any eq 5060
>>>permit tcp any any eq 5060
>>>permit tcp any eq 5060 any
>>>permit udp any any eq 5060
>>>permit udp any eq 5060 any
>>>permit tcp any any eq 143
>>>permit tcp any eq 143 any
>>>permit tcp any any eq 80
>>>permit tcp any eq 80 any
>>>permit tcp any any eq 443
>>>permit tcp any eq 443 any
>>>permit tcp any any eq 993
>>>permit tcp any eq 993 any
>>>permit tcp any any eq 7993
>>>permit tcp any eq 7993 any
>>>permit tcp any any eq 389
>>>permit tcp any eq 389 any
>>>permit tcp any any eq 2748
>>>permit tcp any eq 2748 any
>>>
>>>config)#class-map voice-rtp
>>>(config-cmap)#match access-group name voice-rtp
>>>(config)#class-map match any cupc-sig
>>>(config-cmap)#match access-group name cupc-sig
>>>
>>>(config-cmap)#policy-map cupc
>>>(config-pmap)#class voice-rtp
>>>(config-pmap-c)#set dscp ef
>>>(config-pmap)#class cupc-sig
>>>(config-pmap-c)#police 32000 8000 exceed-action policed-dscp-transmit
>>>(config-pmap-c)#set dscp cs3
>>>
>>>(config)#interface GigabitEthernet1/0/4
>>>config-if)#service-policy input cupc
>>>Phone ports
>>>mls qos trust cos
>>>mls qos trust device cisco phone
>>>
>>>Server ports
>>>mls qos trust dscp
>>>
>>>I got 0 marks for this question - any body can clarify where it's wrong ?
>>>___
>>>For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please 
>>>visit www.ipexpert.com
>>>
>>>Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
>>>www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>>>
>>___
>>For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please 
>>visit www.ipexpert.com
>>
>>Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
>>www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>>
>
>___
>For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please 
>visit www.ipexpert.com
>
>Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
>www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>

___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[Juan Lopez]

not sure about that Ken.
If we use auto qos on a switch, it applies a service policy in combination
with mls qos statements on the same port.

These mls qos statements I believe are used for anything not mathching the
service policy

cheers,
Juan

2012/5/14 Ken Wyan 

> If we specify a service-policy ,then mls qos trust commands won't have any
> effect. Then you have to consider rtp traffic in ACL.
>
>
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:32 PM, san r  wrote:
>
>> Since they specifically asked for 'CUPC Signalling ' I don't think you
>> need to mark the RTP traffic
>>  On May 13, 2012 11:53 AM, "Nazeer rahiman"  wrote:
>>
>>> For LAN QoS I got below question
>>> All servers are connected (running on vmware) to SW int G 1/0/4. CUPC is
>>> running in UCCX and test pc.
>>> They asked to configure one in softphone mode other one is desktop mode.
>>> also configre voice mail on both clients
>>> QoS question was - In Gig 1/0/4 , make sure all incoming CUPC signaling
>>> traffic to mark CS3 and gurantee 32k BW. anythung
>>> exess should be mark down to DSCP 8 and retransmit.
>>> My ans was -
>>> mls qos
>>> mls qos map cos-dscp 0 8 16 24 32 46 48 56
>>> mls qos map policed-dscp 24 26 to 8
>>>
>>> ip access-list extended voice-rtp
>>> permit udp any any range 16384 32767
>>> ip access-list extended cupc-sig
>>> permit tcp any any eq 5060
>>> permit tcp any any eq 5060
>>> permit tcp any eq 5060 any
>>> permit udp any any eq 5060
>>> permit udp any eq 5060 any
>>> permit tcp any any eq 143
>>> permit tcp any eq 143 any
>>> permit tcp any any eq 80
>>> permit tcp any eq 80 any
>>> permit tcp any any eq 443
>>> permit tcp any eq 443 any
>>> permit tcp any any eq 993
>>> permit tcp any eq 993 any
>>> permit tcp any any eq 7993
>>> permit tcp any eq 7993 any
>>> permit tcp any any eq 389
>>> permit tcp any eq 389 any
>>> permit tcp any any eq 2748
>>> permit tcp any eq 2748 any
>>>
>>> config)#class-map voice-rtp
>>> (config-cmap)#match access-group name voice-rtp
>>> (config)#class-map match any cupc-sig
>>> (config-cmap)#match access-group name cupc-sig
>>>
>>> (config-cmap)#policy-map cupc
>>> (config-pmap)#class voice-rtp
>>> (config-pmap-c)#set dscp ef
>>> (config-pmap)#class cupc-sig
>>> (config-pmap-c)#police 32000 8000 exceed-action policed-dscp-transmit
>>> (config-pmap-c)#set dscp cs3
>>>
>>> (config)#interface GigabitEthernet1/0/4
>>> config-if)#service-policy input cupc
>>> Phone ports
>>> mls qos trust cos
>>> mls qos trust device cisco phone
>>>
>>> Server ports
>>> mls qos trust dscp
>>>
>>> I got 0 marks for this question - any body can clarify where it's wrong ?
>>> ___
>>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
>>> please visit www.ipexpert.com
>>>
>>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com 
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
>> visit www.ipexpert.com
>>
>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com 
>>
>
>
> ___
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
> visit www.ipexpert.com
>
> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com 
>
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[joesph periera]

Hi,

My friend is today lets see if he will pass will update :)

Cheers

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Ken Wyan  wrote:

> If we specify a service-policy ,then mls qos trust commands won't have any
> effect. Then you have to consider rtp traffic in ACL.
>
>
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:32 PM, san r  wrote:
>
>> Since they specifically asked for 'CUPC Signalling ' I don't think you
>> need to mark the RTP traffic
>>  On May 13, 2012 11:53 AM, "Nazeer rahiman"  wrote:
>>
>>> For LAN QoS I got below question
>>> All servers are connected (running on vmware) to SW int G 1/0/4. CUPC is
>>> running in UCCX and test pc.
>>> They asked to configure one in softphone mode other one is desktop mode.
>>> also configre voice mail on both clients
>>> QoS question was - In Gig 1/0/4 , make sure all incoming CUPC signaling
>>> traffic to mark CS3 and gurantee 32k BW. anythung
>>> exess should be mark down to DSCP 8 and retransmit.
>>> My ans was -
>>> mls qos
>>> mls qos map cos-dscp 0 8 16 24 32 46 48 56
>>> mls qos map policed-dscp 24 26 to 8
>>>
>>> ip access-list extended voice-rtp
>>> permit udp any any range 16384 32767
>>> ip access-list extended cupc-sig
>>> permit tcp any any eq 5060
>>> permit tcp any any eq 5060
>>> permit tcp any eq 5060 any
>>> permit udp any any eq 5060
>>> permit udp any eq 5060 any
>>> permit tcp any any eq 143
>>> permit tcp any eq 143 any
>>> permit tcp any any eq 80
>>> permit tcp any eq 80 any
>>> permit tcp any any eq 443
>>> permit tcp any eq 443 any
>>> permit tcp any any eq 993
>>> permit tcp any eq 993 any
>>> permit tcp any any eq 7993
>>> permit tcp any eq 7993 any
>>> permit tcp any any eq 389
>>> permit tcp any eq 389 any
>>> permit tcp any any eq 2748
>>> permit tcp any eq 2748 any
>>>
>>> config)#class-map voice-rtp
>>> (config-cmap)#match access-group name voice-rtp
>>> (config)#class-map match any cupc-sig
>>> (config-cmap)#match access-group name cupc-sig
>>>
>>> (config-cmap)#policy-map cupc
>>> (config-pmap)#class voice-rtp
>>> (config-pmap-c)#set dscp ef
>>> (config-pmap)#class cupc-sig
>>> (config-pmap-c)#police 32000 8000 exceed-action policed-dscp-transmit
>>> (config-pmap-c)#set dscp cs3
>>>
>>> (config)#interface GigabitEthernet1/0/4
>>> config-if)#service-policy input cupc
>>> Phone ports
>>> mls qos trust cos
>>> mls qos trust device cisco phone
>>>
>>> Server ports
>>> mls qos trust dscp
>>>
>>> I got 0 marks for this question - any body can clarify where it's wrong ?
>>> ___
>>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
>>> please visit www.ipexpert.com
>>>
>>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com 
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
>> visit www.ipexpert.com
>>
>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com 
>>
>
>
> ___
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
> visit www.ipexpert.com
>
> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[Ken Wyan]

If we specify a service-policy ,then mls qos trust commands won't have any
effect. Then you have to consider rtp traffic in ACL.


On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:32 PM, san r  wrote:

> Since they specifically asked for 'CUPC Signalling ' I don't think you
> need to mark the RTP traffic
>  On May 13, 2012 11:53 AM, "Nazeer rahiman"  wrote:
>
>> For LAN QoS I got below question
>> All servers are connected (running on vmware) to SW int G 1/0/4. CUPC is
>> running in UCCX and test pc.
>> They asked to configure one in softphone mode other one is desktop mode.
>> also configre voice mail on both clients
>> QoS question was - In Gig 1/0/4 , make sure all incoming CUPC signaling
>> traffic to mark CS3 and gurantee 32k BW. anythung
>> exess should be mark down to DSCP 8 and retransmit.
>> My ans was -
>> mls qos
>> mls qos map cos-dscp 0 8 16 24 32 46 48 56
>> mls qos map policed-dscp 24 26 to 8
>>
>> ip access-list extended voice-rtp
>> permit udp any any range 16384 32767
>> ip access-list extended cupc-sig
>> permit tcp any any eq 5060
>> permit tcp any any eq 5060
>> permit tcp any eq 5060 any
>> permit udp any any eq 5060
>> permit udp any eq 5060 any
>> permit tcp any any eq 143
>> permit tcp any eq 143 any
>> permit tcp any any eq 80
>> permit tcp any eq 80 any
>> permit tcp any any eq 443
>> permit tcp any eq 443 any
>> permit tcp any any eq 993
>> permit tcp any eq 993 any
>> permit tcp any any eq 7993
>> permit tcp any eq 7993 any
>> permit tcp any any eq 389
>> permit tcp any eq 389 any
>> permit tcp any any eq 2748
>> permit tcp any eq 2748 any
>>
>> config)#class-map voice-rtp
>> (config-cmap)#match access-group name voice-rtp
>> (config)#class-map match any cupc-sig
>> (config-cmap)#match access-group name cupc-sig
>>
>> (config-cmap)#policy-map cupc
>> (config-pmap)#class voice-rtp
>> (config-pmap-c)#set dscp ef
>> (config-pmap)#class cupc-sig
>> (config-pmap-c)#police 32000 8000 exceed-action policed-dscp-transmit
>> (config-pmap-c)#set dscp cs3
>>
>> (config)#interface GigabitEthernet1/0/4
>> config-if)#service-policy input cupc
>> Phone ports
>> mls qos trust cos
>> mls qos trust device cisco phone
>>
>> Server ports
>> mls qos trust dscp
>>
>> I got 0 marks for this question - any body can clarify where it's wrong ?
>> ___
>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
>> visit www.ipexpert.com
>>
>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com 
>>
>
> ___
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
> visit www.ipexpert.com
>
> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com 
>
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[Brian Turner]

I think you guys are over thinking it maybe.  Isn't all traffic from the
CUPC server Signaling traffic?  The CUPC server doesn't really do anything
but "Signaling"

Media traffic goes from enpoint to endpoint, or endpoint to MTP etc.  All
other voice traffic is typically considered signaling.

So an ACL that just matched all traffic to / from the CUPC server IP
address would include signaling traffic for the CUPC server and little else.

I didn't see the earlier email concerning the wording of the question, so
this is a stab in the dark.

Brian S Turner CCIE 6145

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:39 AM, san r  wrote:

> Release Notes for Cisco Unified Personal Communicator Release 7.0
> has
> got all inbound & outbound port usage for CUPC
>
>
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cupc/7_0/english/release/notes/ol15710.html
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 5:27 PM, san r  wrote:
>
>> I think we will need to consider the citi port number too
>>  On May 13, 2012 2:57 PM, "steven moran"  wrote:
>>
>>>  I've been doing some work on this topic and have moved away from my
>>> original thoughts which were along the same lines as originally posted by
>>> Nazeer and a few others .  Here are some recent thoughts on the subject
>>>
>>> the question is not particularly well worded, we can't really influence
>>> the traffic from the CUPC client to the server by applying policy on the
>>> server port.  What we can do is control what the switch port does with
>>> packets from the CUPS server to the clients by classifying and applying an
>>> input ploicy on the server port.  I went back to the presence section in
>>> the CUCM srnd - the only traffic between CUPC and CUPS seems be 5060
>>> for sip/simple and  443 for SOAP,  this was sort of backed up by the
>>> information in the CUPC 7.1 release.  The release notes also mention that
>>> ports 16384-16424 are used for TFTP - but this would not be classed as
>>> signalling.  Since there are other servers on the port any access list
>>> would need to specifiy the server IP address.  If you wanted to make it
>>> really specific you could also specify the destination address of the CUPC
>>> clients as well.  Finally by putting bidirectional access lists (any any eq
>>> and any eq any) you may loose the points as it might appear you are hedging
>>> your bets and do not know how directional QoS works.  Also we are asked to
>>> guarantee 32k for signalling traffic if we put non signalling traffic into
>>> this policy we are not achieving the requirements.
>>>
>>> These statements are not facts, just my current opinion based on the
>>> last bits of documentation read and I am happy to discuss.
>>> Best regards.
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> ___
>>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training,
>>> please visit www.ipexpert.com
>>>
>>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com 
>>>
>>
>
> ___
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
> visit www.ipexpert.com
>
> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[san r]

Release Notes for Cisco Unified Personal Communicator Release 7.0
has
got all inbound & outbound port usage for CUPC


http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cupc/7_0/english/release/notes/ol15710.html




On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 5:27 PM, san r  wrote:

> I think we will need to consider the citi port number too
>  On May 13, 2012 2:57 PM, "steven moran"  wrote:
>
>>  I've been doing some work on this topic and have moved away from my
>> original thoughts which were along the same lines as originally posted by
>> Nazeer and a few others .  Here are some recent thoughts on the subject
>>
>> the question is not particularly well worded, we can't really influence
>> the traffic from the CUPC client to the server by applying policy on the
>> server port.  What we can do is control what the switch port does with
>> packets from the CUPS server to the clients by classifying and applying an
>> input ploicy on the server port.  I went back to the presence section in
>> the CUCM srnd - the only traffic between CUPC and CUPS seems be 5060
>> for sip/simple and  443 for SOAP,  this was sort of backed up by the
>> information in the CUPC 7.1 release.  The release notes also mention that
>> ports 16384-16424 are used for TFTP - but this would not be classed as
>> signalling.  Since there are other servers on the port any access list
>> would need to specifiy the server IP address.  If you wanted to make it
>> really specific you could also specify the destination address of the CUPC
>> clients as well.  Finally by putting bidirectional access lists (any any eq
>> and any eq any) you may loose the points as it might appear you are hedging
>> your bets and do not know how directional QoS works.  Also we are asked to
>> guarantee 32k for signalling traffic if we put non signalling traffic into
>> this policy we are not achieving the requirements.
>>
>> These statements are not facts, just my current opinion based on the last
>> bits of documentation read and I am happy to discuss.
>> Best regards.
>> Steve
>>
>> ___
>> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
>> visit www.ipexpert.com
>>
>> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
>> www.PlatinumPlacement.com 
>>
>
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[Kevin Spicer]

I think the drawback to that approach is that the policer is applied to
traffic from all servers (as they all share the same port on VMware).
Given that CUP should be marking appropriately anyway wouldn't this be a
valid configuration...

mls qos
mls qos map policed-dscp 24 to 8

class-map *match-all *CUP-Sig
 match dscp cs3
 match access-group name cup-sig-acl

policy-map police-cup
 class CUP-Sig
  set dscp cs3  ! or could use trust dscp
  police 32000 8000 exceed-action policed-dscp-transmit
 class class-default
  trust dscp

ip access-list extended cup-sig-acl
 permit ip host x.x.x.x any

interface Gi 1/0/4
 service-policy input police-cup


On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Nazeer rahiman  wrote:

> For LAN QoS I got below question
> All servers are connected (running on vmware) to SW int G 1/0/4. CUPC is
> running in UCCX and test pc.
> They asked to configure one in softphone mode other one is desktop mode.
> also configre voice mail on both clients
> QoS question was - In Gig 1/0/4 , make sure all incoming CUPC signaling
> traffic to mark CS3 and gurantee 32k BW. anythung
> exess should be mark down to DSCP 8 and retransmit.
> My ans was -
> mls qos
> mls qos map cos-dscp 0 8 16 24 32 46 48 56
> mls qos map policed-dscp 24 26 to 8
>
> ip access-list extended voice-rtp
> permit udp any any range 16384 32767
> ip access-list extended cupc-sig
> permit tcp any any eq 5060
> permit tcp any any eq 5060
> permit tcp any eq 5060 any
> permit udp any any eq 5060
> permit udp any eq 5060 any
> permit tcp any any eq 143
> permit tcp any eq 143 any
> permit tcp any any eq 80
> permit tcp any eq 80 any
> permit tcp any any eq 443
> permit tcp any eq 443 any
> permit tcp any any eq 993
> permit tcp any eq 993 any
> permit tcp any any eq 7993
> permit tcp any eq 7993 any
> permit tcp any any eq 389
> permit tcp any eq 389 any
> permit tcp any any eq 2748
> permit tcp any eq 2748 any
>
> config)#class-map voice-rtp
> (config-cmap)#match access-group name voice-rtp
> (config)#class-map match any cupc-sig
> (config-cmap)#match access-group name cupc-sig
>
> (config-cmap)#policy-map cupc
> (config-pmap)#class voice-rtp
> (config-pmap-c)#set dscp ef
> (config-pmap)#class cupc-sig
> (config-pmap-c)#police 32000 8000 exceed-action policed-dscp-transmit
> (config-pmap-c)#set dscp cs3
>
> (config)#interface GigabitEthernet1/0/4
> config-if)#service-policy input cupc
> Phone ports
> mls qos trust cos
> mls qos trust device cisco phone
>
> Server ports
> mls qos trust dscp
>
> I got 0 marks for this question - any body can clarify where it's wrong ?
> ___
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
> visit www.ipexpert.com
>
> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[san r]

I think we will need to consider the citi port number too
On May 13, 2012 2:57 PM, "steven moran"  wrote:

> I've been doing some work on this topic and have moved away from my
> original thoughts which were along the same lines as originally posted by
> Nazeer and a few others .  Here are some recent thoughts on the subject
>
> the question is not particularly well worded, we can't really influence
> the traffic from the CUPC client to the server by applying policy on the
> server port.  What we can do is control what the switch port does with
> packets from the CUPS server to the clients by classifying and applying an
> input ploicy on the server port.  I went back to the presence section in
> the CUCM srnd - the only traffic between CUPC and CUPS seems be 5060
> for sip/simple and  443 for SOAP,  this was sort of backed up by the
> information in the CUPC 7.1 release.  The release notes also mention that
> ports 16384-16424 are used for TFTP - but this would not be classed as
> signalling.  Since there are other servers on the port any access list
> would need to specifiy the server IP address.  If you wanted to make it
> really specific you could also specify the destination address of the CUPC
> clients as well.  Finally by putting bidirectional access lists (any any eq
> and any eq any) you may loose the points as it might appear you are hedging
> your bets and do not know how directional QoS works.  Also we are asked to
> guarantee 32k for signalling traffic if we put non signalling traffic into
> this policy we are not achieving the requirements.
>
> These statements are not facts, just my current opinion based on the last
> bits of documentation read and I am happy to discuss.
> Best regards.
> Steve
>
> ___
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
> visit www.ipexpert.com
>
> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

[OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[steven moran]

I've been doing some work on this topic and have moved away from my
original thoughts which were along the same lines as originally posted by
Nazeer and a few others .  Here are some recent thoughts on the subject

the question is not particularly well worded, we can't really influence the
traffic from the CUPC client to the server by applying policy on the server
port.  What we can do is control what the switch port does with packets
from the CUPS server to the clients by classifying and applying an input
ploicy on the server port.  I went back to the presence section in the CUCM
srnd - the only traffic between CUPC and CUPS seems be 5060
for sip/simple and  443 for SOAP,  this was sort of backed up by the
information in the CUPC 7.1 release.  The release notes also mention that
ports 16384-16424 are used for TFTP - but this would not be classed as
signalling.  Since there are other servers on the port any access list
would need to specifiy the server IP address.  If you wanted to make it
really specific you could also specify the destination address of the CUPC
clients as well.  Finally by putting bidirectional access lists (any any eq
and any eq any) you may loose the points as it might appear you are hedging
your bets and do not know how directional QoS works.  Also we are asked to
guarantee 32k for signalling traffic if we put non signalling traffic into
this policy we are not achieving the requirements.

These statements are not facts, just my current opinion based on the last
bits of documentation read and I am happy to discuss.
Best regards.
Steve
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

Re: [OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[san r]

Since they specifically asked for 'CUPC Signalling ' I don't think you need
to mark the RTP traffic
On May 13, 2012 11:53 AM, "Nazeer rahiman"  wrote:

> For LAN QoS I got below question
> All servers are connected (running on vmware) to SW int G 1/0/4. CUPC is
> running in UCCX and test pc.
> They asked to configure one in softphone mode other one is desktop mode.
> also configre voice mail on both clients
> QoS question was - In Gig 1/0/4 , make sure all incoming CUPC signaling
> traffic to mark CS3 and gurantee 32k BW. anythung
> exess should be mark down to DSCP 8 and retransmit.
> My ans was -
> mls qos
> mls qos map cos-dscp 0 8 16 24 32 46 48 56
> mls qos map policed-dscp 24 26 to 8
>
> ip access-list extended voice-rtp
> permit udp any any range 16384 32767
> ip access-list extended cupc-sig
> permit tcp any any eq 5060
> permit tcp any any eq 5060
> permit tcp any eq 5060 any
> permit udp any any eq 5060
> permit udp any eq 5060 any
> permit tcp any any eq 143
> permit tcp any eq 143 any
> permit tcp any any eq 80
> permit tcp any eq 80 any
> permit tcp any any eq 443
> permit tcp any eq 443 any
> permit tcp any any eq 993
> permit tcp any eq 993 any
> permit tcp any any eq 7993
> permit tcp any eq 7993 any
> permit tcp any any eq 389
> permit tcp any eq 389 any
> permit tcp any any eq 2748
> permit tcp any eq 2748 any
>
> config)#class-map voice-rtp
> (config-cmap)#match access-group name voice-rtp
> (config)#class-map match any cupc-sig
> (config-cmap)#match access-group name cupc-sig
>
> (config-cmap)#policy-map cupc
> (config-pmap)#class voice-rtp
> (config-pmap-c)#set dscp ef
> (config-pmap)#class cupc-sig
> (config-pmap-c)#police 32000 8000 exceed-action policed-dscp-transmit
> (config-pmap-c)#set dscp cs3
>
> (config)#interface GigabitEthernet1/0/4
> config-if)#service-policy input cupc
> Phone ports
> mls qos trust cos
> mls qos trust device cisco phone
>
> Server ports
> mls qos trust dscp
>
> I got 0 marks for this question - any body can clarify where it's wrong ?
> ___
> For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please
> visit www.ipexpert.com
>
> Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out
> www.PlatinumPlacement.com
>
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com

[OSL | CCIE_Voice] Lab 7 Lan QOS

[Nazeer rahiman]

For LAN QoS I got below question
All servers are connected (running on vmware) to SW int G 1/0/4. CUPC is 
running in UCCX and test pc.
They asked to configure one in softphone mode other one is desktop mode. also 
configre voice mail on both clients
QoS question was - In Gig 1/0/4 , make sure all incoming CUPC signaling traffic 
to mark CS3 and gurantee 32k BW. anythung
exess should be mark down to DSCP 8 and retransmit.
My ans was -
mls qos
mls qos map cos-dscp 0 8 16 24 32 46 48 56
mls qos map policed-dscp 24 26 to 8

ip access-list extended voice-rtp
permit udp any any range 16384 32767
ip access-list extended cupc-sig
permit tcp any any eq 5060
permit tcp any any eq 5060
permit tcp any eq 5060 any
permit udp any any eq 5060
permit udp any eq 5060 any
permit tcp any any eq 143
permit tcp any eq 143 any
permit tcp any any eq 80
permit tcp any eq 80 any
permit tcp any any eq 443
permit tcp any eq 443 any
permit tcp any any eq 993
permit tcp any eq 993 any
permit tcp any any eq 7993
permit tcp any eq 7993 any
permit tcp any any eq 389
permit tcp any eq 389 any
permit tcp any any eq 2748
permit tcp any eq 2748 any

config)#class-map voice-rtp
(config-cmap)#match access-group name voice-rtp
(config)#class-map match any cupc-sig
(config-cmap)#match access-group name cupc-sig

(config-cmap)#policy-map cupc
(config-pmap)#class voice-rtp
(config-pmap-c)#set dscp ef
(config-pmap)#class cupc-sig
(config-pmap-c)#police 32000 8000 exceed-action policed-dscp-transmit
(config-pmap-c)#set dscp cs3

(config)#interface GigabitEthernet1/0/4
config-if)#service-policy input cupc
Phone ports
mls qos trust cos
mls qos trust device cisco phone

Server ports
mls qos trust dscp

I got 0 marks for this question - any body can clarify where it's wrong ? 
___
For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit 
www.ipexpert.com

Are you a CCNP or CCIE and looking for a job? Check out 
www.PlatinumPlacement.com