RE: QoS suggestion [7:60994]

2003-01-14 Thread John Humphrey
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

RE: QoS suggestion [7:60994]

2003-01-14 Thread John Humphrey
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

RE: QoS suggestion [7:60994]

2003-01-14 Thread alaerte Vidali
Do you have experience with LLQ and MSFC that you can share? I configured LLQ but it seems packets are not going to the priority queue: class-map match-all Priority-Queue match access-group name TV ! policy-map Policy class Priority-Queue priority 200 class class-default

RE: QoS suggestion [7:60994]

2003-01-14 Thread John Humphrey
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

RE: QoS suggestion [7:60994]

2003-01-14 Thread Ivan Yip
Hi, I have the following testing setup but it looks like the LLQ does not work. Can you have a look on it? When the 256k link was congested. Why I ping the prec. 5 packet behind the 256k line it only have the same response time with default ping? 128k--- FR 256k Attached 256k router