Hi Everybody,
I have configured the following parameters on the
serial interface for VoIP.The quality of the calls is
not very good during working hours you can feel some
delay/small interruptions while using it.
interface serial 0
ip tcp header-compression iphc-format
no ip mroute-cache
no f
We've had a lot of success *not* using ip rtp priority, but using
LLQ/CBWFQ instead. This allows you to assign a strict priority queue
for voice traffic while giving you flexibility with the other classes of
non-voice traffic.
Frame relay fragmentation is generally not needed if your link speed
Amit, I found this extremely useful document on CCO awhile back. It covers
a wide variety of QOS for voice issues, including descriptions and sample
configs. Great stuff...
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/cisintwk/intsolns/qosvoip.htm
Rik
""Amit Gupta"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTEC
What codec are you using? If the speed of the link is T1 or less I would
definitly do LFI. Otherwise large packets (1500 bytes) could be starving
the voice from the minimum latency that it needs.
Brian
On Thu, 31 May 2001, Amit Gupta wrote:
> Hi Everybody,
>
> I have configured the following
I thought 768Kbps was the minimum you needed NOT to use LFI... at
768Kbps, it takes ~15ms for a 1500byte frame to be put on the line. So even
if a couple 1500-byte ethernet frames came between your voice frames, it
would wouldn't be too bad... but depending on the queuing method, even
at
The Cisco AVVID guru's just told me to bail on LLQ and go to CBWFQ instead.
Problems with code or just works better according to them.
Tony
#6172
- Original Message -
From: Michael L. Williams
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: VoIP QoS [7:6586]
> I thought
t; Tony
> #6172
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Michael L. Williams
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2001 8:56 AM
> Subject: Re: VoIP QoS [7:6586]
>
>
> > I thought 768Kbps was the minimum you needed NOT to use LFI... at
> > 768Kbps, it takes ~15ms
CTED]...
> > The Cisco AVVID guru's just told me to bail on LLQ and go to CBWFQ
> instead.
> > Problems with code or just works better according to them.
> > Tony
> > #6172
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: Michael L. Williams
> >
#x27;s and trusts and
QOS maps , WOW !!
Good luck to all of us and I'll keep sharing what I learn in this field.
Tony M.
#6172
- Original Message -
From: Brian
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: VoIP QoS [7:6586]
> Can you elaborate on this a little? I mea
recommends LFI for links
To: "Will"
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: VoIP QoS [7:6586]
>
> Can you elaborate on this a little? I mean LLQ is basically PQ-CBWFQ, and
> offers a CBR priority queue for the voice to use. With CBWFQ your voice
> traffic i
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 10:04 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Subject: Re: VoIP QoS [7:6586]
>
> Can you elaborate on this a little? I mean LLQ is
> basically PQ-CBWFQ, and
> offers a CBR priority queue for the voice to use.
> With CBWFQ your voice
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
