Hi George, When you said "both would be an acceptable answer on a lab",you mean real exam lab or practice lab? Personally think there's only one acceptable value,but of course both might accepted during exam.
If not wrong (and this topic has been bring up multiple times in OSL or Ask the expert)Ben Ng has emphasized that he would used QoS SRND as a reference guideline during the exam. I would used different value suggest by various expert for practicing,but for real exam, will only use QoS SRND reference. If not proctor not agree with the value defined in the SRDN, i'll just tell him then he shouldn't be left this on candidate desktop. Just my opinion,hope i won't kick out by Cisco after all. Shingei. On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 6:19 PM, George Goglidze <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > There is inconsistency between the two SRNDs on how much Layer 2 overhead > is to be used for voice traffic calculations. > > CUCM SRND states the following: > > CODEC > Header Type and Size > Ethernet > 14 Bytes > PPP > 6 Bytes > ATM > 53-Byte Cells with a 48-Byte Payload > Frame Relay > 4 Bytes > MLPPP > 10 Bytes > MPLS > 4 Bytes > WLAN > 24 Bytes > > > And QOS SRND states the following: > > • 802.1Q Ethernet adds (up to) 32 bytes of Layer 2 overhead. > • Point-to-point protocol (PPP) adds 12 bytes of Layer 2 overhead. > • Multilink PPP (MLP) adds 13 bytes of Layer 2 overhead. > • Frame Relay adds 4 bytes of Layer 2 overhead; Frame Relay with FRF.12 > adds 8 bytes. > • ATM adds varying amounts of overhead, depending on the cell padding > requirements > > Which one do you use? I understand both would be an acceptable answer on a > lab, but I'm just interested what most of the people use for their > calculations. > > Thanks for any answers. > > George > > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > >
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
