RE: ip multicast [7:60813]
239.0.0.0 thru 239.255.255.255 make up the multicast limited scope (224.0.0.1-238.255.255.255 are classified as globally scoped meaning that these are taken up by various protocols/applications). As far as I know, there is no CIDR/subnet mask notation for addresses in the Class D space. You can assign the limited scope mulitcast group addresses at your own discretion (similar to RFC 1918 IP addresses). Remember, the Class D address is assigned to the group and the multicast PIM will allow unicast to muticast address mapping. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=60980&t=60813 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: QoS suggestion [7:60994]
You've got a few options. The most basic (and most limited) is using IP RTP Priority. The will prioritize all RTP traffic on the applied interface. The best solution (IMHO) is to use LLQ. Low Latency Queueing can be thought of as CB-WFQ with the added benefit of a priority queue. This is probably what you want to do. Create a class-map (or map-class if it's a frame relay interface) and apply the voice traffic to the priority queue with the "priority" command, and then assign all your other traffic to a "fair queue". CB-WFQ does provide minimum bandwidth guarantee but it does not give you the priority queue that voice traffic likes so much. Hope this helps. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=61024&t=60994 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: QoS suggestion [7:60994]
forgot to add one thing you probably already know this but if you decide to use LLQ for a PPP serial connection (like a t1 or frac t1) you will want to implement LFI (link fragmentation and interleave). this means that your config will be implemented on a "multilink1" interface rather than a physical interface. LFI allows you circumvent excessive serialization delays on slow WAN connections. This does not apply to frame relay interfaces. Cisco has some really good docs on this topic. Let me know if you would like more info. Hope this helps Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=61025&t=60994 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: QoS suggestion [7:60994]
i don't see any obvious problems with your configuration. I can, however,
offer a couple of troubleshooting tips. I would start by checking out the
access list ("show access-list") to make sure you have packets that qualify.
Second (and this is where I think your problem is), I would lose the
"match-all" in your class-map. Since you're only searching one criterion,
there's no need for the match-all (which is the default match clause
anyways). Here's a quote from Cisco's web site to confirm:
"The match all and match any options need to be specified only if more than
one match criterion is configured in the traffic class. The class-map
match-all command is used when all of the match criteria in the traffic
class must be met in order for a packet to match the specified traffic
class. The class-map match-any command is used when only one of the match
criterion in the traffic class must be met in order for a packet to match
the specified traffic class. If neither the match-all nor match-any keyword
is specified, the traffic class will behave in a manner consistent with
class-map match-all command"
Let me know what you find out. Hope this helps
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=61030&t=60994
--
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bridging and STP issue [7:61031]
Does anyone know which version of IEEE STP bridge-groups use? Switches use the PVST+ (one spanning tree per vlan). However, I can't determine if router bridge-groups use PVST+ or the IEEE standard CST (one spanning tree instance for all vlans). Here's my delimna: I've got a 4006 (Sup II) with a Layer 3 (WS-X4232-L3) module. I want to implement bridging on the subinterfaces on the routing engine. The subinterfaces are running dot1q encap. for inter-vlan routing (similar to how the 2600 series implements inter-vlan routing). Anyway, I want to bridge IPX between two vlans while routing IP (CRB will do this just fine, I don't need a BVI with IRB). My only concern is having the bridges STP calculation interfere with my other Catalyst STP instances. Any thoughts? Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=61031&t=61031 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: CCIE Written Study Material [7:61026]
I highly recommend Bruce Caslow's "Bridges, Routers & Switches for CCIEs". This book is the best I've seen. I've also heard good things about "Internet Routing Architectures" and "Routing TCP/IP" by Jeff Doyle. Hope this helps and GOOD LUCK on your studies. Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=61032&t=61026 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Traffic Shaping and LLQ on MSFC's and RSM's [7:61575]
I've encountered this issue in our production environment with policy-maps. Here's the answer Cisco's TAC gave me. Since the msfc interfaces are software based, the MLS engine will bypass the route processor on most of your layer 3 packets. This prevents the shaping/policing policy from being applied on all egress traffic. You can, however, successfully apply the policies to all ingress traffic because it must travel thru the Layer 3 process before it is sent to the destination node. So, if you're applying a service-policy to a msfc interface it must be applied with "input" as the direction. I'm not sure what effect disabling MLS would have on this process but I'm sure the benefits (if there would be any) would not be worth it. You can however use QoS policies on the layer 2 modules with acl mapping to achieve much of the same benefits. jh Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=61623&t=61575 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: bandwidth problem on cisco routers!!! [7:61556]
In my humble opinion, cef should not interfere with any of your qos commands (if anything it helps). As a matter of fact CEF is required when using certain types of class/policy maps. It sounds to me like custom queuing would better suit your needs. You probably already know this but custom queuing allows you to divide bandwidth among different protocols/hosts/etc. The great thing with CQ is that bandwidth not used in one queue becomes available to other queues. I know it's frustrating when this stuff doesn't work the way we think it should, but I've never seen a routing/switching platform that outperform or outscale Cisco gear. jh Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=61625&t=61556 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good CCIE Written web reference [7:61698]
Anybody recommend a good web reference for the 350-001 test? I've read multiple manuals and taken a number of the Boson practice tests, but I still feel a little under-prepared. Any recommendations would be appreciated (especially from someone who has passed the exam). jh Message Posted at: http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=61698&t=61698 -- FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
