I just some thing the book said not to :)
On 4/3/08, Jonathan Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Fix what stuff?
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Chad Stachowicz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > all i will say is this bit me in the butt first time taking the lab, i
> had
> >
Fix what stuff?
Jonathan
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Chad Stachowicz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> all i will say is this bit me in the butt first time taking the lab, i had
> to have the prcotor fix my stuff about 7 minutes in :)
>
>
>
>
> On 4/3/08, Mark Snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
all i will say is this bit me in the butt first time taking the lab, i had
to have the prcotor fix my stuff about 7 minutes in :)
On 4/3/08, Mark Snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well - there will always be for any given lab - but they also change from
> time to time - so posting them here woul
Gist is good.
Jonathan
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Mark Snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This has been addressed ad-nausium in a very recent past thread right here
> let me try to dig it up and forward it again - but the gist of the
> answer is:
>
> Bandwidth or Priority cmd in CBWFQ
This is fine, Mark. No reason to dig it back up. Sorry I wasn't in the
original nausium.
I understand most of the IPT concepts regarding the IE Lab. It is just that
the devil is in the details.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Mark Snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This has been addressed ad-naus
Exactly - can you send your config Jason?
--
Mark Snow
CCIE #14073 (Voice, Security)
CCSI #31583
Senior Technical Instructor - IPexpert, Inc.
A Cisco Learning Partner - We Accept Learning Credits!
Telephone: +1.810.326.1444
Fax: +1.309.413.4097
Mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Join our free onl
This has been addressed ad-nausium in a very recent past thread right
here let me try to dig it up and forward it again - but the gist
of the answer is:
Bandwidth or Priority cmd in CBWFQ section depends on CIR value IF
Traffic Shaping is present on that interface
Bandwidth or Priority
Since CCM uses 80k per G.711 call, you actually need to be at 160 for
two calls... kinda weird, huh... but the online help has all the
bandwidth values, so the info is readily available.
Jonathan
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Scott Monasmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 64k is only the g711ul
64k is only the g711ulaw codec bandwidth. Below is the reason why...
The calculation would be as follows:
BW = ([L2 overhead + IP_UDP_RTP Overhead + Sample Size] / Sample_Size) *
Codec_Speed
BW = ([32+40+160]/ 160) * 64000
BW = 92.8k
For a better understanding, read page 1-15 of the QoS SRND 3.
As I understand it, however, I could be completely wrong...
Jonathan
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Scott Monasmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I understood it correctly, the bandwidth command would prevent you from
> configuring LLQ with values above the 75% default threshold. Also, the
>
If I understood it correctly, the bandwidth command would prevent you from
configuring LLQ with values above the 75% default threshold. Also, the
bandwidht command is utilized when AutoQoS is configured. Are you telling me
that when you configure LLQ and FRTS/GTS that the priority/bandwidth percent
No, it is based on the bandwidth command on the interface (if I
understand Mark correctly...) and it is limited to 75% total usage of
that configured bandwidth...
However, this can be changed with a max-reserved-bandwidth 90
The reason it is is limited so you don't choke out your routing protocol
BTW, this command is why you should ALWAYS increment on IP address...
If you increment on port, this command won't help you.
Jonathan
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Mohamed ElGammal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> sho ip mroute
> check if the multicast address is the one you configured on
Does the priority/bandwidth percent command, within LLQ, calculate the
percentage of bandwidth based on the link speed (768k) or the shaping speed
(768k * .95)?
policy-map llq
class voice
priority percent 33
class signal
bandwidth percent 5
class class-default
fair-queue
policy-map shape
sho ip mroute
check if the multicast address is the one you configured on call manager and
router ... look at the link below to see if the multicast address is matching
your codec ...
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ps5207/products_feature_guide09186a00802d1c31.html
Date:
Understood.
Next question is - Do you have to configure a form of FRTS with FRF.12? Can
you just configure the following...
map-class frame-relay frf12
frame-relay fragment 960
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Mark Snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Exactly correct - both methods described be
Well - there will always be for any given lab - but they also change
from time to time - so posting them here wouldn't actually even help
anyone! :)
As Scott said - and as always with any CCIE track - READ VERY
CAREFULLY. :-)
Cheers,
--
Mark Snow
CCIE #14073 (Voice, Security)
CCSI #31583
Exactly correct - both methods described below configure LFI (strictly
speaking about LFI here) in the exact same way.
1st method combines FRF.12 LFI with GTS (Generic Traffic Shaping).
2nd method combines FRF.12 LFI with FRTS proper.
So - I will speak to some caveats - and then let you be the
So would I
It seems this bug would eat a lot of time creating the translation-profiles...
Also, I am a big fan of num-exp
Jonathan
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 9:04 AM, jason sung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would avoid using dialplan pattern command for CME in the lab.
>
> Instead just use tran
I would avoid using dialplan pattern command for CME in the lab.
Instead just use translation profiles on the voice-port for ANI and DNIS.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Paul and Bobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am hitting the bug as explained above. I removed the dial-plan and it
> worke
I can get IPMA to work during AAR but that intercept key just does not
work. I look at the CCM traces but it shows nothing.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 8:24 AM, Jonathan Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That doesn't necessarily mean we might not be asked to do it...
> remember, test of worst prac
When calculating delay don't you divide it by the CIR rather than port
speed.
Petr Lapukhov, CCIE #16379, says:
We need to calculate the fragment size for MLPPP. Since physical port speed
is 512Kpbs, and required serialization delay should not exceed 10ms
(remember, fragment size is based on phys
I did and the proof is that I was able to see multicast for g729.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:04 PM, Mark Snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Did you have the command 'dcm-manager music-on-hold' ?
>
> You still need that one.
>
> Mark Snow Sr Technical Instructor
> IPexpert, Inc.
>
> Sent from my iP
That doesn't necessarily mean we might not be asked to do it...
remember, test of worst practices...
: )
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Mark Snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AAR and IPMA are inherently incompatible in CUCM 4.1 - as is AAR with ANY
> CTI Route Points.
>
> --
> Mark Snow
> CC
If you do not have frame-relay adaptive shaping BECN, you will ignore BECNs.
Well, you won't ignore them, you just won't adjust your speed cuz of em.
And if your mincir and cir are the same, even if you were becn aware,
it wouldn't matter cuz your backoff rate is the same as your standard
rate...
Hate to mention this...
Also note that the partition is in your calling search space,
just down at the bottom...
Jonathan
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 6:43 AM, Edward French <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The only patterns you can call are ones specifically defined in partitions
> that are in your
The only patterns you can call are ones specifically defined in partitions that
are in your CSS otherwise you get a fast busy, so no you do not need to make a
specific block pattern unless you also have a 1[2-9]XX[2-9]XX which would
allow 1800XXX. Another reason to make a block patten wo
Hi all,
Just wondering, is " no frame-relay adaptive-shaping interface-congestion "
required for a frame-relay with FRF.12? Or it doesn't matter if my mincir is
equal to cir?
Thanks.
Oh,
Yes!! I am doing that as best practice in real life. This is for fraud
prevention.
But, "worse practice" for ccie lab :-p As we want to save as much time as
possible during lab.
HTH
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Paul and Bobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guys
>
> Got a silly question tha
Guys
Got a silly question thats bugging me. Do you have to explicitly block
patterns you do not want users to be able to dial. Let me tell you what im
thinking.
'PhoneA' in in PAR-INT with CSS-ALL
'PhoneB' in in PAR-INT with CSS-INT
1800XXX is in PAR-FREE
and only CSS-ALL contains PAR-
30 matches
Mail list logo
